Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SCOTTISH TRANSPORT GROUP (CASTLE BAY PIER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

National Lorry Route

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he is going to announce proposals to establish a national heavy lorry route.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): As soon as we have had time to make up our minds about all the comments.

Mr. Madden: Is the Minister aware that the inordinate delay in the announcement of the proposals is causing widespread uncertainty, not least to local authorities which, by law, are supposed to submit their own schemes by the beginning of the new year. If this scheme is to be scrapped, as is widely rumoured, may we be told at the earliest possible date?

Mr. Horam: I am anxious to come to a swift decision, but we have to consider all the points that have been made and, unfortunately, there are conflicting opinions. I am confident that local authorities can make proposals under the Dykes Act which will make a lot of sense. In many ways the best solution is to build up from the bottom by banning lorries from sensitive areas.

Sir W. Elliott: Is the Minister aware of the terrific problem of heavy lorries

passing through the urban area of Gateshead—Newcastle—Gosforth? Will he do his best to hasten the decision on the detrunking of the A1 in order to get heavy lorries around this urban area?

Mr. Horam: Of course I am aware of the problems of heavy lorries in Gateshead. We have made a proposal for detrunking the A1 through Newcastle and Gateshead but the period for objections to the scheme to be heard is still open. Therefore, I cannot say anything about its merits at this stage.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Will the Minister take account of the carriage of dangerous chemicals and liquids when he is considering these problems? In particular, will he think about urging the carriage of this type of freight by rail? If this does not happen, one day we shall wake up to a very serious incident.

Mr. Horam: I believe that my hon. Friend has a later Question on the Order Paper which may well not be reached today. If it is reached, I have a very comprehensive answer to it. We have approached most large industrial concerns pointing out this situation and urging them to consider it in the disposition of their rail freight traffic.

British Railways

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the Chairman of British Railways.

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next proposes to meet the Chairman of the British Railways Board.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): I met him recently and expect to see him again soon.

Mr. Ovenden: Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that his next meeting with the Chairman of British Rail is held before the end of the year in order to try to avert the proposed fare increases, which are due to take effect in January? Is he aware that an increase of up to 16 per cent. in rail fares will cause real hardship to rail travellers, undermine the social contract, and do


long-term damage to the rail industry? Will the Secretary of State consider that an increase in the subsidy to £25 million would halve the level of the increase and therefore be money well spent?

Mr. Speaker: I feel like telling the Minister to attempt any two out of those five questions.

Mr. Rodgers: Even then, Mr. Speaker, I might get only one of them right. However, I certainly can give my hon. Friend one assurance—I shall meet the Chairman of British Rail before the end of the year. I must disappoint him on his other questions. It would be quite wrong to mislead the House. These decisions on fares are for British Rail and there is no prospect whatsoever of making further resources available to the railways in the difficult economic time ahead. That should be accepted as a starting point. Of course, there will be hardship, but the decisions must be made on the basis of priorities and the resources involved.

Mr. Neubert: In view of the recent record of the Greater London Council, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that to allow it to have a monopoly of train services in the London area by taking over British Rail would be a calamity, both to the commuter and to the ratepayer? Will he scotch this disastrous idea straight away?

Mr. Rodgers: No, it is not for me to scotch any particular idea today. The record of the GLC, which has had to cope with some extremely difficult problems, is a great deal better than the hon. Gentleman rather ungenerously suggests. One problem is to get a suitable accommodation among all the various public transport services in London. Co-ordination is difficult. I like to think that progress is being made, although I cannot pretend that it is very fast.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that after the last fare increase there was a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of passengers using the route between Glasgow and London? Does he not appreciate that that places a much greater burden on his Department's road budget? Surely it would be better to keep down fares so as to keep passengers using the route to capacity.

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the sort of analysis that we have to make. It is wrong to consider any increase in fares in isolation. Whatever may be the experience of the rail service to which my hon. Friend refers, in 1975, for example, when there were increases in fares amounting to 50 per cent., the number of passenger journeys dropped by less than 5 per cent. while revenue increased by £90 million. These are figures that cannot be ignored.

Mr. Madel: When the Minister meets the Chairman of British Rail, will he assure him that the electrification project for the line from Bedford to St. Pancras will not be postponed as a result of any announcement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot possibly give an assurance of that kind on the basis of evidence I do not have.

Mr. Norman Fowler: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about public expenditure constraints, does he agree that unnecessary subsidies must be eliminated? As it costs the taxpayer £70 million a year to subsidise rail freight operations, will the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects the rail freight subsidy to be eliminated?

Mr. Rodgers: A more temperate approach to subsidies is desirable. Without substantial subsidies on the passenger side, there would be a much smaller rail network, which would not meet the social need. On the freight side, I have made clear before that there is no good reason why within a period British Rail should not meet the full cost of its freight operation. There has been some improvement. I hope that the subsidy, if it is unnecessary, will be eliminated very soon.

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary or State for Transport if he will set up an inquiry into the efficiency of British Railways.

Mr. William Rodgers: No, Sir.

Mr. Sainsbury: As we have already heard from the right hon. Gentleman that there is no prospect of further resources being made available to British Rail, and as we have heard from his hon. Friend that the Department is extremely cost conscious, does the right


hon. Gentleman agree that the taxpayer and the commuter are entitled to some independent judgment of the efficiency with which the resources of British Rail are now being used?

Mr. Rodgers: No, I do not. The chairman and the Board are appointed and given a job to do. I think that they should be supported more frequently by the House. It is not an easy task. We have a mixed economy, and in those circumstances we should encourage managers, who are often very professional and devoted, to get on with the job. We should not make carping criticisms.

Mr. Litterick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any judgment of the efficiency of British Rail must be made on a comparative basis? Does he agree that in the first place there should be comparisons with the efficiency of other railway systems throughout the world, none of which manages to make a profit? Secondly—in my view, much more important—does he agree that comparison should be made with the efficiency, or lack of it, of the private motorised freight-carrying system, which is an alleged free —that is, chaotic—market system involving the duplication of resources and immense social and unmeasured costs?

Mr. Rodgers: I agree that comparisons are relevant, but I take a rather simpler criterion. The management of British Rail must provide the most efficient service that it can to meet economic and social needs. I think that it is tackling the task in the best possible way.

Mr. Stephen Ross: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the new Chairman of British Rail, will he put it to him that it would be helpful to Members to be able to see separate accounts for the various British Rail regions, which at present are not readily available? Secondly, will he convey to him the congratulations of the Liberal Bench on the introduction of the high-speed train, which brings a successful service to Bristol and Cardiff, a service that could be taken advantage of by other British Rail regions?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that Mr. Peter Parker will note the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks. I shall mention the hon. Gentleman's first point to the Chairman

of British Rail. The more information that can be made available, the better. Of course the House wants to discuss these matters, but we must try to allow the management to get on with the job and deal with some of the major problems.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Chairman of British Railways about closing uneconomic sectors of the railway network.

Mr. William Rodgers: None, Sir.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: May I suggest that when the right hon. Gentleman does meet the Chairman of British Railways he raises this matter with him and asks him whether he holds the view that the present concept of a subsidy for British Rail as opposed to subsidies for individual routes will allow anybody to know which routes are economic and which are not?

Mr. Rodgers: No, I do not think that that is one of the matters which I should feel justified in discussing with the Chairman of British Rail at present. I know that there are differences of opinion about the best possible system, but there is common ground on both sides, first, that without a passenger subsidy there would be a very small network, which would not meet social needs, and, secondly, that the management must have some discretion within the statutory procedures.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that there is great fear among railway workers generally that not merely uneconomic lines but even economic lines are in danger of being closed down? Will he give an assurance that this will not happen, because there are fears among working people generally that the whole network will be drastically reduced?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend very fairly refers to fears which exist in the industry at all levels. I greatly regret that such fears exist. There must be change in every industry and I greatly hope that railwaymen will be able to arrive at a sense of confidence about the future and will help to provide a service which is efficient and effective and meets


genuine need without increasing the cost, which would have to be borne on public expenditure.

Mr. Evelyn King: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that, when there are substantially more than 1 million unemployed, we listen to announcements on the loudspeakers at stations of a long list of trains which have been cancelled because of staff shortage? Is not this an extraordinary lack of co-ordination in the national system?

Mr. Rodgers: That is an extraordinary simplification. The fact that there is a large number of people out of work and that British Railways have a shortage of staff does not mean that those out of work have the required skills or are of the right quality to fill specified vacancies. Although they are losing substantial numbers of men, British Railways are still recruiting as well.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend consider urging the Chairman of British Railways to do something revolutionary⁁that is, to halve the fares and thus attract back to the railways those who would greatly like to travel on the railways if only they were able to afford the fares?

Mr. Rodgers: I greatly wish that I could agree with my hon. Friend that that is how it would work, but, I regret, all the evidence is very much to the contrary. British Railways have carried out a number of experiments and by and large the result has been that more passengers reduce revenue. I have made it clear to the Chairman of British Railways that any reductions that he chooses to make have my blessing but that if, as a result of reductions, there is a loss of revenue, that loss must be carried somewhere else within his budget.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present network is well below the level at which it ought to be and that the execution work done by Lord Beeching will be looked on in retrospect as a national disaster? Is not one way of improving the financial situation of the railways to adopt the suggestion by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) to transfer freight from the roads to the railways?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's expression of opinion about what was done some years ago will be widely shared. I agree that it is desirable that the railways should carry as large a proportion of freight as possible. But there are problems. We must have an efficient system, and there must be a limit to the money made available to it in the form of revenue support. Otherwise, additional costs will fall on both taxpayers and ratepayers.

Rural Transport

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take to improve transport in rural areas.

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take to improve rural transport; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Horam: The Government, through transport supplementary grant, are already helping shire counties to provide bus revenue support at an unprecedented level this year. We are soon to begin a series of practical experiments to test various unconventional means of providing transport for people living in country areas. The major problems of rural transport will of course figure largely in the transport policy on which we are now consulting all the interested bodies.

Mr. MacGregor: Is the Minister aware that, despite the grant, the problems of rural transport are getting more and more difficult? As it is likely to take some time for the results of his experiments to come through, will he consider introducing in this Session a short Bill relaxing licensing restrictions, especially for minibuses, as this would greatly ease flexibility in dealing with rural transport and would help voluntary associations and youth clubs whose use of mini-buses is being restricted?

Mr. Horam: I accept that the transport problems in rural areas are getting more difficult. We cannot introduce a Bill relaxing licensing laws generally. We are conducting experiments and it is right that we should have some experience before making a general decision. I hope


that the hon. Gentleman will press his Front Bench colleagues to allow the Bill which we are introducing—which provides for four experimental areas—to make speedy progress. The use of minibuses for voluntary associations may be a suitable subject for a Private Member's Bill, to which I would certainly give sympathetic treatment.

Mr. John Ellis: Does my hon. Friend accept that the opening of the Humber Bridge will have a major effect on the transport infrastructure on south Humberside? Does he agree that in the short term nothing must be done to alter the pattern until the local authorities have studied the problem of the area as a whole?

Mr. Horam: I am conscious that we must take into account the Humber Bridge proposal—an excellent proposal on which we are making satisfactory progress—in considering the rural arrangements in my hon. Friend's part of the world.

Mr. Fry: We have waited two-and-a-half years for these small measures to be brought forward. We hope that we shall not have to wait another two-and-a-half years before measures applying to all rural districts are brought in. Does the Minister agree that, because of the pressure on local government expenditure, which is likely to continue, after that lapse of time there will be precious little public transport left in many rural areas?

Mr. Horam: As I said, I am anxious to get a move on with this problem, the seriousness of which I fully recognise. We hope to begin the experiment by about Easter, all being well. It depends on the progress of the Bill, which we are anxious to get through quickly.

Road Building (Employment)

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek to ensure that all future contracts for road building are designed to provide the maximum number of jobs for the unemployed and to use the minimum quantity of imported machinery and energy.

Mr. Horam: If the hon. Member has any practical suggestions which would not increase public expenditure or de-

crease the mileage of roads which can be built I shall gladly consider them.

Mr. Pardoe: Has the Department made any estimate of the import content of the road building programme and its effect on the balance of payments? Does he accept that a switch to labour-intensive road building would provide substantially more jobs at no extra cost, with no increase in the borrowing requirement and no fewer roads?

Mr. Horam: We have no information about the import content of machinery used by the road construction industry. I should be reluctant to single out road construction if we did not have more general policies about the import content of machinery. I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about there being no extra cost. Going back to manual methods of constructing roads would be horribly expensive and scarcely in the interests of increased efficiency.

Mr. Selby: Does the Minister agree that to do what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) suggested would be a form of Ludditism—turning back the clock? Why not extend it to all forms of industry and employ all the unemployed?

Mr. Horam: I am interested in my hon. Friend's suggestion that the Liberals are associated with the Luddites. That is very apt.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the Minister accept that, while contractors are most willing to use the most modern machinery, his Ministry is the worst payer in the business, keeping firms waiting for two years for payment on contracts for road works and motorways? Will he make sure that payment is made more quickly?

Mr. Horam: The Department is extremely cost conscious. If we have been too mean and too long-winded, I shall look into it. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular instances he can bring to mind, I shall certainly consider them.

Seat Belts

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward legislation to make the wearing of safety belts compulsory.

Mr. William Rodgers: I believe that Parliament will eventually endorse the compulsory wearing of seat belts but I cannot at present say when legislation may be possible.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's failure to bring forward an early Bill on this issue is deplorable? More than 1,000 people die each year because of the absence of this legislation. The House knows my right hon. Friend's fine record on this issue. Will he consult his colleagues and urge that a Bill be brought before Parliament within the next few weeks?

Mr. Rodgers: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern. In the past Session we probably had the worst of all worlds—a Government Bill with a free vote. The right course now is probably a short pause to enable us to devise the best means of ensuring that the next time legislation is presented to Parliament it will pass through all its stages.

Mr. Carlisle: As the Bill was successfully killed in two consecutive Sessions, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the right course is to encourage the voluntary wearing of seat belts rather than waiting for compulsion?

Mr. Rodgers: In so far as there is to be a pause, I entirely agree that it is right to encourage the voluntary wearing of seat belts. I have approved a new advertising campaign, which I hope will have that result. Although I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's views on this issue, the House registered its view by an overwhelming majority. I think that in due course that must take effect in legislation.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he now makes of the number of lives that would be saved in the United Kingdom in 12 months if the wearing of seat belts in cars were made compulsory.

Mr. Horam: About 1,000, if all belts fitted in cars and light vans were worn.

Mr. Goodhart: If the Minister accepts the improved figures, why do not the Government make more strenuous efforts to get seat belt legislation through the House?

Mr. Horam: The hon. Member will have heard my right hon. Friend's reply. We intend to make every effort to get the legislation through the House. The situation is well known and I am glad of the hon. Member's support.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Was it not the House of Lords that struck the seat belts provision out of a road traffic Bill more than 12 months ago? Does not that mean that their Lordships carry a heavy responsibility?

Mr. Horam: My right hon. Friend is correct.

Mr. Ford: Has any estimate been made of the number of lives that would have been lost had the wearing of seat belts been compulsory?

Mr. Horam: Our estimate is that it would have been fractional. The consequences of wearing a seat belt and the likely damage as a result are infinitesimal compared with the advantages of wearing one.

M1 (Bedfordshire)

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to prohibit heavy vehicles and lorries from using the overtaking lane on the two-lane stretch of the M1 south of Bedfordshire; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Horam: Such restrictions have been placed on certain short stretches of two-lane motorway where there are uphill gradients and heavy traffic causing congestion, but I am not convinced at the moment that they would be appropriate on that particular stretch.

Mr. Madel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the severe congestion on this section of the M1 is getting worse year by year and is made even worse when one lorry slowly passes another? I recognise that at present the Government do not have the wherewithal to construct a third lane, but will they consider this matter again? This section of the M1 will be used more and more as the years pass. Surely the suggestion in the Question would be helpful.

Mr. Horam: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. We have no evidence yet that lorries, as opposed to the general


level of traffic, are causing a problem on this section of the M1. If we were to restrict lorries, it would, first, be difficult to enforce the restriction as this is a heavily-used route and it would be hard for the police to operate a restriction on this section of the M1. There is also the problem that lorries might begin to use other and less suitable roads.

Mr. Ford: I could furnish the Department with the evidence. I could do so if my hon. Friend drove with me down the M1 from the North on a Monday morning. Is my hon. Friend aware of the intense frustration that is caused to private car drivers by lorries using the second avenue on a two-channel roadway? That occurs not only within the stretch mentioned in the Question but on stretches of three-lane motorway that have been restricted to two lanes.

Mr. Horam: As I have said, I am not unsympathetic on this point, which I shall examine carefully. I am well aware of the problems, but I must point out to my hon. Friend that motorways are meant for lorries as well as cars. If lorries do not go on motorways, they will go on roads that are far less suitable and will thus cause far more annoyance to the general public.

Cherished Number Plates

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from motor traders regarding the regulations which he proposes to make regarding the transfer of cherished number plates facility.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will now seek to regularise the legal basis upon which the transfer of cherished number plates is carried out.

Mr. Horam: Regulations will be laid before the House very soon. This will establish a proper legal basis and accord with the main thrust of the representations which have been received, namely, that the cherished transfer facility be speedily restored.

Mr. Mayhew: Is it not the case that the new rules that were announced in a Press release from the Department the other day were forced from the Minister

by a completely unlawful ban imposed by his Swansea civil servants, a ban that was blatantly political in its intent? Does not the cherished transfer facility directly stimulate sales of higher-quality new cars and, therefore, stimulate jobs? If that is so, why should the new rules utterly destroy the livelihood of those who deal in cherished numbers?

Mr. Horam: We have had consultations with the trade associations representing those who deal in personalised numbers or cherished marks, whatever one wishes to call them. They have not given us any evidence that they will suffer as a result of the new rules. There will be a change in the nature of their business. They will not carry out so much speculative purchasing of old combine harvesters or mopeds, for example, which have attractive numbers. They will, on the other hand, arrange marriages between, for example, elderly Bentleys and new Rovers. They will give advice and consultancy. They will have a rôle and a job. They have never said that that will not be so. They have played a most constructive part in finalising the new rules. with which everyone is now happy.

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is intolerable that he should be led by the nose by the trade unions into promulgating what are not regulations but restrictive practices? Will he return and negotiate again? Better still, will he ask for tenders from the private sector to perform this work much more cheaply and on a more economic basis to meet the needs of the customers?

Mr. Horam: The rules are specifically designed to protect the bona fide possessor of a cherished mark or personalised number plate. All they do is eradicate certain abuses that have crept into the system over the years.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that a realistic fee will now be paid for this facility? Will he tell the House for how long it has been subsidised by the Department? What is the extent of the subsidy?

Mr. Horam: At present the fee is £5 plus VAT, which does not cover costs. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government took powers to increase the fee in the Finance Bill this year. Regulations


subject to affirmative resolution will be laid before the House in due course to raise the fee.

Mr. Mayhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that, in view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply to Question 16, I shall also seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Non-residential Parking

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many comments he has received on the subject of private non-residential parking; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many comments he has received on the subject of private non-residential parking; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: Over 250 comments were received on the consultation paper and they will be considered in the course of preparing my White Paper on transport policy.

Mr. Montgomery: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any assessment of the effect that parking schemes such as this will have on business in city areas such as Manchester?

Mr. Rodgers: No, not at this stage. It is fair to say that schemes of this sort will have to be judged on merit and on local conditions. Local conditions vary immensely. That is why the responses to the consultation paper have shown a fair range of differences.

Mr. Grist: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that those of us who represent city centre constituencies receive a constant stream of criticism not only from those precluded from parking in city centres but from those who live on the fringe of the zones, who receive an undue and unwarranted amount of traffic parking in their streets to which they have not been accustomed? Is not the right answer the provision of proper parking facilities at a reasonably low price?

Mr. Rodgers: The issue is a good deal more complex than that, as I think the hon. Gentleman will realise on reflection. It is not only a question of the capacity of the car park but the capacity of the streets. As I have said, there are differences of opinion. I think that Members on both sides of the House have had representations from those representing each side of the argument. For the moment, I have made no decision. The consultations will continue. We shall assess them and reach a decision.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend recall the recommendations contained in the White Paper on Urban Transport Planning published in July 1973 by the Tory Government? That document recommended, with the unanimous support of the House, that parking in city centres be discouraged by various methods.

Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very timely reminder. There is a large measure of agreement that, unless there is restraint of traffic, and particularly of parking, in city centres, there is no way of ensuring the smooth running of public transport. There are also questions beyond that and they are those that were discussed in the consultation paper.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that what we are opposed to are indiscriminate parking restrictions? Does he agree that any parking scheme must recognise the legitimate rights of the business traveller and special groups such as the handicapped, for whom transport is not a luxury but a necessity?

Mr. Rodgers: If the question is put like that, the answer is "Yes".

Moorgate—Bedford (Electrification Scheme)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish his evaluation of the £80 million capital investment in the Moorgate to Bedford electrification scheme.

Mr. William Rodgers: No, Sir. That would be contrary to general practice based on questions of confidentiality.

Mr. Spearing: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the criteria for evaluation were set out in House of Commons Paper 269/74 and that, although this investment in the Bedford to Moorgate scheme is welcome, there are many other schemes at much less cost that might take priority within inner London, particularly the dockland area? Would he explain why this evaluation, like many other Government matters, must remain confidential?

Mr. Rodgers: I have always been in favour of the maximum disclosure by nationalised industries and others to the House and to the public, but there are some matters which inevitably come into an evaluation and which, if the information were freely available, could prejudice the commercial success of the railways to which my hon. Friends, as I am, are devoted.

Mr. Madel: Is the Secretary of State aware that work on this scheme is due to start in January 1977? Can we have an assurance that work really will begin?

Mr. Rodgers: I certainly have no reason to believe that it will not.

Lorry Shipments (Documentation)

Sir J. Eden: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied that there is no unnecessary documentation hindering the shipment of lorry-carried goods from United Kingdom ports to elsewhere in Europe; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: I think so, but if the right hon. Gentleman has a particular point in mind I will gladly consider it.

Sir J. Eden: I am glad that the Minister thinks so. As that is so, will he give priority attention to the inadequacy of the quota of permits available to British lorries carrying goods to the Continent and also look urgently at the fact that British lorries are barred from arriving on the Continent with full fuel tanks?

Mr. Rodgers: The answer is "Yes" to both questions.

Rail and Bus Services

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the discussions

leading to the integration of policy on rail feeder services and assured bus services.

Mr. Horam: The discussions are continuing as part of the review of transport policy.

Mr. Cook: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very great concern that has been caused that other rail services could be replaced by short bus feeders? Does he think that the lines from Wick to Edinburgh and from Oban to Glasgow could be adequately replaced by bus services? What guarantee can he give that such bus services would be assured, as 50 per cent. of all bus service replacements for rail closures in the past decade have been withdrawn?

Mr. Horam: I am aware of the concern that this proposal has caused. We put this forward as a suggestion for consideration in the light of all the consultations that we are having on the transport document. I am not familiar with all the details of the Oban to Glasgow line, but I can understand them from the way my hon. Friend describes them. I think that we should be careful before substituting a bus service of that kind for a rail service. I am aware that in the past assurances that have been given have in many instances been broken. They would have to be good in future.

Mr. Beith: Does the Secretary of State realise that in north Northumberland the National Bus Company seems to take the view that it would rather replace the rail services than provide the feeder bus services to sustain them? Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a general directive to the National Bus Company—after all, it is a nationalised concern—to the effect that it should seek to provide a better service as a matter of policy?

Mr. Horam: I am interested in that suggestion and will look at it.

Mr. Loyden: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the developments taking place on Merseyside with the loop link line and integration with bus services? As an integrated transport policy is Labour Party policy, will my right hon. Friend look at the policy of creating a viable rail network in the area and not create a white elephant?

Mr. Horam: We are certainly interested in positive suggestions for physically integrating bus and rail services in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. In the course of consultations, many authorities have made such proposals, some of which have been very imaginative. We are anxious to provide services at the lowest possible cost. The alternative is that the services close down altogether. We are not in the business of producing white elephants.

Mr. Fry: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, although essential services must be assured, there is no argument in favour of heavily subsidising under-utilised routes purely in the call for a dogmatically integrated transport policy?

Mr. Horam: We are not interested in dogma. The whole point of the consultation process has been to open minds to new and imaginative proposals, and if people such as ourselves as politicians and operators are not sufficiently creative we shall not get an adequate transport policy.

Greater London

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied that sufficient progress is being made towards the optimum allocation of resources for transport, especially within the Greater London area.

Mr. William Rodgers: Yes, Sir, as far as it is possible to be satisfied in present circumstances.

Mr. Forman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we shall never get anywhere with this problem without more linkage between the various modes of transport on both services and timetables? Has he considered doing something to that effect or knocking together the heads of the Chairmen of London Transport and British Rail in the London area?

Mr. Rodgers: This problem has exercised the minds of hon. Members over a period. The GLC, London Transport and British Rail are now getting together. Certainly they will have full encouragement and assistance from my Department.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the bus section of London Transport is probably the largest publicly-owned regional bus section in the country, that it covers the largest area, has immense problems, and provides a not very satisfactory service? Is he prepared to see the chairmen of the LTE and of the relevant committee of the GLC to consider how he can assist them with their grave problems?

Mr. Rodgers: We all have a good opinion of ourselves in this House. However, I must not overestimate my capacity to do what others have not yet done in the management of the bus service. There are particular and difficult problems in London. We have all complained about them. Nevertheless, those responsible for the management of the bus section are aware of the problems and, with further co-operation, I hope that they will be substantially overcome.

Mr. Gorst: Is the Secretary of State aware that under regulations to be introduced by the GLC after 4th December there can be no sensible allocation of resources in the London Transport area if commuters coming into London are selectively discriminated against, as they will be if car parking facilities are to be the subject of gross increases in charges and if the GLC is to have the power to restrict parking times so that people commuting into London by car are unable to make use of car parking facilities? If he is not aware of that situation, will he institute an inquiry into the whole matter before the regulations are introduced?

Mr. Rodgers: The Greater London Council, like any other local authority, works within statutes laid down by the House. We must allow it a measure of local option. Inevitably, decisions made by a local authority of any political colour are bound to be uncongenial to some people. Increases in costs of this kind have to be borne where they fall. There is no prospect of either central Government or local government increasing the subsidy to transport.

Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the last few years considerable resources have been devoted to bus replacement in London and that there is controversy over that matter


now? Does he also recall that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and I raised the matter in the House many years ago? Will he now undertake an inquiry inside his Department to see whether his conduct of it in the past has contributed to the problem?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that this problem could be put down to the conduct of my Department, because it has been short-lived. Certainly, if there is anything here which causes concern on both sides of the House and it is within my statutory responsibility, I shall look at it.

Ports (Ownership)

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to change the ownership of any ports.

Mr. William Rodgers: Not in this Session.

Mr. Viggers: Is the Secretary of State aware that very few opportunities occur for the Opposition to congratulate the Government, but that his Department in this sector and the Drought Minister in his have been equally successful? Will he assure the House that he will keep up his present record, because the competition and efficiency of the ports are helped by their varied ownership?

Mr. Rodgers: If I understand the hon. Gentleman aright, the answer is that I can make no promises.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the only way to keep Preston Docks open is to change their ownership by taking them into public ownership, away from a municipal authority which does not want to keep them open?

Mr. Rodgers: I know of my hon. Friend's very proper concern, which he has expressed to me. Equally, he knows that I have no powers to exercise in this matter.

British Railways (Shipping Services)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give a general direction to the Chairman of British Railways for British Railways shipping services to be accounted for separately from those of rail services.

Mr. Horam: British Rail has always been required to show shipping activities separately in its accounts.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that I am disturbed about the increasing numbers of foreign ships which are in use in British ports? Will he ensure that British Railways use their profits to build British ships and to find employment for British seamen, rather than to subsidise foreign lines?

Mr. Horam: On the whole, the shipping subsidiary of British Railways has performed creditably. At the moment it is making a loss, but the situation is improving.
The British Railways Board has in the past ordered ships from a Danish yard. I have no information about any future orders in that connection.

Mr. Forman: Shipping services are shown separately in the accounts of British Railways. Will the hon. Gentleman consider persuading them to show the figures for inner and outer suburban services separately, as it is difficult for people to form an assessment if they do not know the percentage of total cost being met in each case?

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that under the 1968 Act, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), costs were shown separately for individual lines. That policy was cancelled in the 1974 Act, which reallocated funds on a general basis. This is a matter about which I can be sympathetic, but there are genuine practical problems, as I am sure the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) will be the first to agree.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I do not object to the separate showing of the accounts of British Railways shipping. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that because of that situation there is no interchangeability of tickets between British Railways rail and shipping services? Co-ordination in that area would be welcome, particularly for cheap day tickets.

Mr. Horam: I was not aware that the accounts being audited separately led to problems regarding the interchangeability of tickets between British Railways rail and shipping services. If that is so, I shall certainly look into it. Clearly, any


effort to introduce a ticket which will take one right through would be sensible.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the lack of orders in the British shipbuilding industry, will my hon. Friend ensure that when British Railways need any further new ships they will place orders in British yards?

Mr. Horam: I well understand my right hon. Friend's concern about this matter. I know of his constituency interest in it. As I said earlier, the last ship ordered by British Railways was from a Danish yard. I have no information on what they intend to do about future orders. This is a matter fundamentally for British Railways, which are a nationalised concern.

Roads (National Parks)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instruct road construction units to hold full and detailed discussions with planning authorities about any proposals for major roads or motorways through national parks.

Mr. William Rodgers: This is the normal procedure. The Department formally consults local authorities and other statutory bodies at a minimum of seven main stages in the planning of a new road, but there are more frequent discussions at officer level.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Peak Park Planning Board has complained to me in strong terms about its lack of ability to obtain detailed information on the activities of the road construction units and their plans regarding major roads and routes? Will he look into that matter with some care?

Mr. Rodgers: Certainly. I am sorry if the board is upset. We shall try to remedy that situation.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the route between Sheffield and Manchester on the M62, along which I had occasion to travel recently, is long and dangerous, and that there is a need to speed up plans? Will he ensure that the consultation procedures are carried out speedily as well as thoroughly?

Mr. Rodgers: Odd as it may seem, I can also say "Yes" to that question without being inconsistent.

Bus Licensing (Rural Areas)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on bus licensing regulations in rural areas.

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on bus licensing regulations in rural areas.

Mr. Speaker: No. 28; Mr. Mills.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Mills: Shall I answer the Question for the Minister?

Mr. Speaker: It was to have been answered with Question No. 17. Perhaps the Minister will look it up.

Mr. Horam: We went through so many Questions so fast that we left out No. 17. The Government's rural transport experiments, with the Bill I propose to introduce as soon as opportunity arises, will test the case for amendment of bus licensing law.

Mr. Mills: Is the Minister aware that that is not good enough? The Government have had two and a half years to do something about rural transport, but they have done nothing. Is not this another example of their lack of concern for rural areas? Will the Government do something as quickly as possible? The problem is serious and flexibility is required.

Mr. Horam: On the contrary. The policy was issued for consultation only in January this year. That is less than 12 months ago and since then we have had valuable consultations. Further proposals will be contained in a Bill providing for rural experiments and the relaxation of licences in experimental areas. I hope that experiments will begin at Easter, and there will be a period of about 18 months during which we can find out about the experiments. Delay is involved, but if we want something sensible and lasting we must experiment before we commit ourselves to new measures.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Does the Minister accept that what the Government are proposing is too little and too late? Does he recognise that the present licensing procedure is preventing good services? Is there not now an overwhelming case for a fundamental reform of the system of traffic commissioners?

Mr. Horam: On the contrary. Licensing may well inhibit experiments with unconventional services which could be part of the answer to the problem. But it also protects existing stage services. It would be foolish to abandon them without some idea of what will happen. We are entering the dark. Many other countries—America is one—have abandoned licensing wholesale and the result has been no stage services and worse rural transport. This is a case for proceeding slowly.

Mr. Mills: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Dangerous Loads

Mr. Walter Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take to minimise the serious consequences of accidents arising from dangerous liquids and chemicals being carried on the roads.

Mr. Horam: I am delighted to reach the Question which my hon. Friend tried to ask earlier. I can now give a slightly more comprehensive answer. The Health and Safety Commission is currently engaged in the preparation of proposals for new general regulations dealing with this problem. As part of this work, the Commission is investigating the adequacy of present standards of vehicle construction.

Mr. Johnson: Although I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, neither it nor the previous one is satisfactory. Does he not realise the seriousness of the problem? Does he not accept that with these vehicles going through villages and towns it is only a matter of time before there is a major disaster? Is not the only way to deal with the problem to take this traffic off the road and put it on to rail?

Mr. Horam: In view of what happened earlier, I had some idea of what my hon.

Friend's supplementary question would be. We have already done something. Most major industrial companies have been urged to consider making greater use of rail for transportation of dangerous goods where that is economical. But there are sound reasons why that cannot be done for some dangerous traffic—for example, petrol, being delivered to retail outlets. Most industrial companies have no direct railhead. That is something we are attempting to deal with under Section 8 grants. We are concerned about the problem and we are trying to deal with it in two ways—by transferring such traffic to rail and by making greater preparation for what happens when there is an accident on the road.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Are dangerous loads required to be properly labelled? If not, why not?

Mr. Horam: They are required to be properly labelled.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Will my hon. Friend set up an inquiry into dangerous loads on roads and on the railways? Does he not agree that safety precautions on the roads are better than those on the railways? Is he aware that since the recent serious accident in my constituency when an ammunition train was derailed no further instructions have been given to railwaymen about such loads?

Mr. Horam: I was aware of the accident and I am interested to learn that no further instructions have been given. I undertake to look into that.

Miss Fookes: Is the Minister satisfied that the labelling required is adequate for those engaged in the fire and emergency services?

Mr. Horam: Yes. Labels give clear instructions about what should be done in an accident. This practice has been developed under the Chemical Industries Association system, and it works. No doubt there could be improvements, and we shall try to make those which are sensible.

Mr. Swain: Is my hon. Friend aware that vinyl chloride produced by Vinatex Limited is covered by a safety regulation allowing emission into the atmosphere of one to one million parts, which is dangerous? Hundreds of tons of this


chemical are transported by road annually. In the event of a road accident, heaven only knows what will happen to the people in the surrounding area.

Mr. Horam: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. He reveals an interest in and knowledge of these matters. We are aware of the problem and we are trying to ensure that precautions are taken when dangerous loads have to go by road, and we are trying to encourage transportation by rail when possible.

Mr. Carlisle: Is not the best way to avoid accidents to improve the road network to enable lorries to have easier access to motorways instead of having to go through residential areas, as occurs in my constituency?

Mr. Horam: I am aware of the difficulties but, unfortunately, we are suffering from expenditure restraints. I wonder what would happen if the hon. and learned Gentleman's party were in power.

Tyne and Wear Metro

Sir W. Elliott: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the Tyne and Wear Metro; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: I have received many representations from right hon. and hon. Members, local authorities, industrial concerns, trade unions and members of the public, mostly in favour of the continuation of the project. These will be taken into account in making decisions about the future of Government grant assistance for it.

Sir. W. Elliott: Is the Minister aware of the concern felt on Tyneside about the possibility of the cancellation of the scheme, which is so important to the future integrated transport system of the region? Does he accept that the continued blacking by ASLEF—which he has rightly criticised—is deplorable? Will he do his best to encourage the continuation of the Metro scheme?

Mr. Rodgers: I am certainly very fully aware of how important the Metro is to Tyneside and I shall do my very best, within the limitations placed upon me, to help. I do not think that I should

comment on an industrial dispute which at the moment looks as though it might be settled. I hope very much that it will be.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have news that the dispute has been settled? Will he accept from me and from all northern Members our great anxiety to see that the scheme goes forward?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes. My hon. Friend's good news is my good news as well. I am very aware of the representations that he and others have made, and I am now keeping my fingers crossed.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when making his decisions that this construction is taking place in one of the areas with the highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom, and that if it were cancelled the effect in raising unemployment in the area concerned would be almost catastrophic?

Mr. Rodgers: There are many factors to be taken into account, because it is an expensive project. We cannot ignore that at present. On the other hand, as my right hon. Friend says, the employment consequences of cancellation would be very considerable, not only directly on Tyneside and in the construction industry, but elsewhere, and account of this should be properly taken.

CARSTAIRS STATE MENTAL HOSPITAL (INCIDENT)

Mrs. Hart: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the incident at Carstairs State Mental Hospital yesterday.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): The whole House will wish to join with me in expressing its deep regret and sympathy to the families of the three people who died in the tragic events which took place in and near the State Hospital at Carstairs last night, and to the others who were injured.
Since criminal proceedings are pending against the two patients, Mr. Robert Mone and Mr. Thomas McCulloch, who escaped, it would not be proper for me at this stage to comment on the events, and I shall give only a brief summary of what is so far known to me.
The two patients were parole patients —that is to say, they had some freedom of movement within the hospital. A nursing officer, Mr. Neil McLellan. was in charge of recreation. The patients were members of his drama group. Early in the evening of 30th November there was a routine check of patients in wards, and, as some patients in the drama group were absent, a call was made to Mr. McLellan's office in the old administration block, part of which is being used temporarily as a recreation area. As there was no reply, nurses went to the office and found the dead bodies of Mr. McLellan and another patient, Mr. Ian Simpson, with severe head injuries. Mr. Simpson was also a parole patient and a member of Mr. McLellan's drama group. A fireman's axe was missing. This axe had formerly been kept in a safe in the central nursing office in the old administration block. When the new block was opened the axe had been handed to Mr. McLellan to keep in the safe in his office for use in case of fire.
The alarm was given and escape procedure put into operation. It was found that the patients had got over the perimeter fence using a weighted rope ladder, which they had evidently prepared beforehand, by what means is not vet known. It is not the case, as stated in the Press, that the patients got through the gate in nurses' uniforms. The patients had taken Mr. McLellan's keys, but these were not used in their escape and they have now been recovered.
The police officers, Constables Taylor and Gillies, were meanwhile on routine patrol in the vicinity of the hospital in a Panda car. They saw two men and stopped to interrogate them. Constable Taylor sustained injuries from which he has since died. Constable Gillies was also slightly injured. The two men made off in the police car until it crashed on the A702. A van stopped at the crash so that the occupants might help. Its two occupants were seriously injured and are in hospital. The van was then taken by the two men, who made off to Town-foot Farm, Roberton, where they secured, apparently under threat of violence, the farmer's car. The men then made off to the south on the A74, with the police in pursuit. The car crashed at roundabout 43, just north of Carlisle, and after a

struggle the occupants were overpowered by the police.
Mr. Mone and Mr. McCulloch were brought before the Sheriff Court at Lanark this morning on a charge of murder. They were committed for further examination and sent to Barlinnie Prison.
These are the main facts as so far known to me. I am already pursuing my own immediate inquiries to satisfy myself that the incident does not reveal any obvious security deficiency that should be dealt with at once, but the House will know that the security record of the State Hospital has been a good one. In view of the nature of the incident, however, it is my intention to set up as soon as possible an independent inquiry into the circumstances in which the escape was possible and to report on any additional measures that might be taken in the interests of security.
Finally, I wish to express my appreciation of the prompt, brave and effective action taken by the police and of their ready co-operation with the hospital. I should also like to pay tribute to the constructive and devoted work done by the hospital staff in the care of patients, often in circumstances of the utmost difficulty.

Mrs. Hart: I think that the whole House would wish to share in conveying our deepest sympathy to the families of those who have been killed—Constable Taylor of Carstairs leaves behind four small children, and Mr. Neil McLellan had a son—including our sympathy to the family of the patient who was killed. I also share with my right hon. Friend the appreciation of the work of the staff of the State Mental Hospital and the very deep appreciation of what the police forces of Lanarkshire and Cumbria did last night in apprehending the two persons who had escaped and preventing any further disasters.
I welcome the inquiry that my right hon. Friend is about to conduct, but may I ask him to ensure that the results of that inquiry are made public, because this is a matter of deep public concern, certainly in my constituency and, I think, in the whole of Scotland? As he knows, there is great anxiety in the area surrounding the Carstairs State Mental Hospital about the security of its own people and their families in the area.
May I finally put one point to my right hon. Friend? Is it not the case that in order to allow maximum tolerance within the hospital for severely disturbed mental patients who are criminals, the perimeter should be much more totally secure? Is that not really one of the things to which we need to give deep attention?

Mr. Millan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what she said in the earlier part of her remarks. I know that the House will share the sentiments that she has expressed.
Concerning the nature of the inquiry, I shall make an announcement as soon as possible. It is certainly my wish that the maximum amount of information should be made publicly available, subject, of course, to the necessary inhibitions in terms of security. I shall certainly make available the maximum amount of information, because I accept what my right hon. Friend has said, namely, that the staff at the hospital and the people who live in the locality are entitled to reassurance about the security arrangements at the hospital.
It is true, as my right hon. Friend has said, that a certain amount of freedom of movement in the case of some patients is allowed within the hospital. However, as I recollect from my own visit to the hospital —admittedly a few years ago—there is very tight perimeter security. Obviously, that is among the matters that will have to be looked into very carefully by the inquiry.

Mr. Monro: May I join with all hon. Members in expressing regret at what has happened? Does the Secretary of State agree that the work of the Strathclyde, Dumfries, Galloway and Cumbria police was a quite exceptional example of police co-operation, in arresting these men at the shortest possible notice and in view of all the circumstances? In order to reassure the people living in the district and, indeed, in Scotland as a whole, even before the inquiry completes its work, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if there is the possibility of weapons such as axes being available within the confines of the hospital, they are most rigidly secured? Will he also, as the right hon. Member for Lanark

(Mrs. Hart) said, look again at the question of the perimeter fence?

Mr. Millan: The question of weapons will obviously be a matter for the inquiry. In fact, it is being looked at in the immediate inquiry now. Similarly, I have already said that the question of the perimeter fence will have to be looked at.
I pay unstinted tribute to the police in dealing with what was obviously an extremely dangerous situation. Perhaps the incident should also remind us that the staff at the hospital are in daily contact with extremely dangerous men, and it is a great tribute to their dedication that they take up this work.

Mr. David Steel: As one who has had occasion to visit this hospital more than once in the last two or three years, may I, on behalf of my colleagues, join in the expressions of sympathy for the injured and the relatives of those killed in this incident? It is right that the House should pause to pay tribute to those who work in the State hospital service, which is little known, publicised or understood outside. We shall await the result of the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry.

Mr. Millan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: I live within four miles of this hospital. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a genuine fear—not just because of this incident last night—because the neighbouring villages do not receive sufficient warning immediately an escape occurs and, furthermore, because after the escapees have been captured the neighbouring villages are not immediately reassured that matters are under control?
I, too, pay a terrific tribute to the staff of the hospital. Included in the staff are my son-in-law and other relatives, so I know the work that they have to do. I add my personal tribute to the two young constables who were involved, one of whom was killed and whom I knew personally. They acted extremely bravely.
I ask my right hon. Friend to pay particular attention to the suggestion put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart). In my opinion the perimeter fence has never been sufficiently strong, or even high enough.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay careful attention to what seems to have been the availability of weapons to these two dangerous men.
Lastly, will my right hon. Friend make public the findings of the inquiry, so that we can all study them and find out how best we can help?

Mr. Millan: Again, I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. On the matter of the safety record of the hospital, one patient escaped in 1969, and two in 1972. In both cases those concerned were at large for only hours rather than days. The hospital's record is a good one, and I know that the hospital authorities have security as a constant preoccupation. That ought to be put on record. All the matters mentioned by my right hon. Friend will be considered, and I shall consider in particular the suggestion about giving warning to people in the surrounding areas when an escape has occurred.

Mr. William Ross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I particularly welcome his drawing attention to the fact that the hospital has a good security record? I visited the hospital earlier this year, and I formed and retain a high regard for the standard of security at the hospital and the devotion to duty of the staff. Last night's events underline in a tragic way exactly what we owe to our protective services in Scotland.
The people with whom we are dealing are potentially terribly unstable, and perhaps the most violent men in Scotland. Is it too early for my right hon. Friend to say what part was played by the patient in this affair—or should we await the further proceedings in that matter?

Mr. Millan: I gather that my right hon. Friend means the patient who died. I have no information that he was involved in the incident, except as an innocent victim, and I think that I had better wait until we get the results of the inquiry.
I was glad to have my right hon. Friend's impression of this hospital. Anyone who visits the hospital—and I include myself among those who have visited it—comes away with an extremely high regard for the staff at the hospital and the way in which they perform their difficult duties.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I should like to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with the expression of sympathy for the families of those who lost their lives, particularly the policeman and the nursing officer. We await with interest the results of the inquiry. I think that it is best to rest on the assurance of the Secretary of State that the inquiry will be thorough.
I hope that this incident, horrifying as it was, will not in any way distort our appreciation of the work that is done by the staff at these hospitals, which is largely unrecognised, unsung and unnoticed when everything is going well. I pay my tribute to the work of these officers who, year in and year out, take on the major responsibility that is passed to them by the ordinary members of the community.

Mr. Millan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said, and I am in full agreement with it.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL (THE HAGUE MEETING)

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the meeting of the European Council which I attended in The Hague with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 29th to 30th November.
The meeting reviewed a number of important questions of concern to all the member Governments of the EEC. Some of our conclusions were recorded in agreed texts, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House.
We had a full discussion on economic and monetary matters, where we looked at the present state and prospects of the Community in relation to the rest of the world. Most of our partners share, in varying degree, our own concern with problems of inflation, employment and balance of payments. There was common interest in trying to ensure that the growth of activity, both in the Community and in the rest of the world, should not slow down and in finding constructive ways of tackling our common problems in a Community framework.
A number of colleagues joined me in stressing that, whilst those countries


which, like the United Kingdom, are still faced with problems of inflation, unemployment, balance of payments and inadequate investment in productive industry must take all possible steps to help themselves, there are also helpful steps which others in the Community could take. In particular, as the Commission brings out in its report which the Council approved, the stronger economies have an important part to play. There was some measure of reassurance about the prospects of continuing recovery. But all member States were concerned about the serious potential effects of any further increase in oil prices.
The second major subject of discussion was the North-South dialogue and the range of problems relating to international economic co-operation. The European Council examined the questions which are currently under discussion in various international bodies, and reaffirmed the importance it attaches to making a contribution to the economic development of the developing countries, while keeping in mind the problems posed by difficulties in the Community's own economy.
We were able to complete our work on the Tindemans Report. There was a warm expression of the Council's thanks to the Belgian Prime Minister for undertaking this task. The European Council endorsed the general lines on which Ministers for Foreign Affairs have been working and emphasised the importance to be given in the next phase of the Community's development to combating inflation and unemployment, to drawing up common policies for energy and for research, and to developing a genuine regional and social policy in the Community. The European Council will have a yearly look at the progress achieved in various fields.
We discussed trade relations between the Community and Japan and drew attention to the problem created by the deterioration in the trade situation and the difficulties which have arisen in certain industrial sectors. The Council agree that these relations should be developed to the advantage of both the Community and Japan. Urgent consideration will be given to various trade problems by the Community institutions; and the Council called for substantial progress to be made before its next meeting. We expressed

satisfaction at the indications we have had of Japanese willingness to co-operate with the Community.
There was an exchange of views on agricultural problems in the Community including the question of monetary compensatory amounts. While some member Governments sought to focus attention particularly on matters arising from changes in currency relationships, I emphasised that these must be seen as only one part of a wider problem—the need to improve the agricultural policy and particularly to eliminate costly surpluses.
The Council approved the nominations of each of the member Governments to the new Commission, and agreed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins) should now be formally appointed as President. The appointment of the hon. Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Tugendhat) as the Second British Commissioner was also confirmed. The Council noted that the Commission would be reviewing its organisation and procedures and looked forward to hearing in due course an account of the conclusions reached.
This meeting once more made clear that many of the problems which we in this country face are shared by others in the Community. It also showed that the institutions of the Community are not sufficiently developed to provide common solutions to these problems, which are intensified by the growing divergence between the economies of various member States. Nevertheless, the exchange of views which we held during the Council meeting will be helpful in our efforts to resolve them.

Mrs. Thatcher: I thank the Prime Minister for making a statement so quickly on his return from The Hague. He certainly was not slow in his delivery.
I should like to put questions to him on three points. The first is agricultural policy. In view of the pressure that he encountered over the green pound, how much longer does he expect to be able to keep it at its present level? Can he give an up-to-date figure for the level of food subsidy which we are now receiving from the Community?
I am aware that he encountered some criticism about the high cost of this subsidy and that he countered that criticism


by saying that the cost was no greater than the cost of the agricultural products policy to the Community, but does he not agree that, if we are taking out so much by subsidies through the currency system, that precludes us from criticising and therefore revising the Community policy over dairy products?
Second, the right hon. Gentleman referred to concern at the increase in oil prices and to the North-South dialogue. Is he not aware that the fact that we do not have a common energy policy and have not moved far towards it hinders us in making an effective contribution to the North-South dialogue? Is there any progress towards a common energy policy?
Third, can the right hon. Gentleman help the House about Press reports about further large loans? There have been such reports in today's Press and it would help very much if we could learn the truth from the Prime Minister.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, if we always go to the Community as a supplicant, either for subsidies or for loans, that prevents us from carrying out the wider creative rôle which was very much expected of us when we joined the Community? Is he not aware that the impression is given that, whereas we used to save ourselves by our exertions, this Government now expect to be saved by the exertions of others?

The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Lady's first question, the difference in the various exchange rates means that the present benefit to the British consumer will run at about £500 million. That is, of course, a valuable aid to us in keeping prices below what they would otherwise be. Therefore, we must maintain this consequence of the monetary compensatory arrangements, which we did not seek but which is a natural result of the arrangements which were made.
The, right hon. Lady is wrong to say that we are prevented or in some way inhibited from criticising the common agricultural policy because we benefit by this figure. Quite the reverse: the point that I made was that the benefit which is received, or its cost to the Community, is less than the cost of the surplus of milk products alone. It follows that what is needed is to get rid of this structural surplus in milk products.
If the green pound were to be devalued here, we should be adding to the structural surplus, because of the efficiency of the British producer. Therefore, the job is to revise the agricultural policy. Then some of these other matters will fall into place. It is taking a one-eyed view of the matter to consider only the monetary compensatory arrangements.
Second, on the question of energy, there was a proposal that, as there is no complete energy policy now in the complete Community, we should concentrate on a common policy of conservation. I believe that work will be done on that, but we should like to see more progress made on the question of a minimum selling price and other aspects such as access, security of sources and that sort of question. But we have not reached that point yet.
Third, on the question of further large loans from the Community, they were neither asked for nor offered and there is no question—certainly on yesterday's discussions—of the Community being involved in any direct sense. As for the right hon. Lady's rather cheap point about saving ourselves by our exertions—[Interruption.] "Cheap," I said. If we pursue the current industrial policy, the industrial strategy, which involves keeping consumer demand down in a way which the Opposition never had the guts to do when they were in power and which also involves keeping other matters under control, then we shall, as the British people are doing now, save ourselves by our exertions.
Indeed, there is quite a possibility that if we continue with the existing policies we shall have at least a balance in our payments running by the end of next year and that we shall move into surplus in 1978. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not ask us to depart from that policy and to return to her own policies of confrontation in the previous Government, which led us into the position from which this Government are now rescuing the country.

Mr. David Steel: May I pursue the first point raised by the Leader of the Opposition? Is the Prime Minister aware that, because he was travelling back yesterday, he had the good fortune to miss my contribution to the economic debate, but that if he had been here he would


have heard me argue that he found himself on the wrong side of the argument with the President of France? How does it make sense—not to the Community taxpayers but to this country—at a time when we are trying to get the balance of payments right, to encourage the continued subsidising of food imports, when instead the Government should be placing maximum reliance on encouraging home agriculture?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that I missed the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but the Leader of the House tells me that it was a very good one. If it was half as good as my right hon. Friend's own winding-up speech last night, it must have been excellent.
There is no contradiction in the policy which is being followed. We are encouraging home agriculture, as is well known, and the steps which have been taken have put a firm foundation under our own agricultural policy. But at present what is important is not only agricultural policy—important though that is—but also the position of the consumer. At a time when our counter-inflation policy is suffering considerable buffeting—not as a result of the unions or wage claims but as a result of many other factors—it is important that we should not throw away a valuable reinforcement of that policy.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend strongly resist any change in the MCAs, particularly automatic changes brought about by the Commission's policies? Would he try to explain to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition that her rather tatty talking-down tactics do not benefit either her country or her party, because we are well aware that we shall be a net contributor to the EEC in the coming year? It is time for the Conservative Party. therefore, to stop talking about subsidies.

The Prime Minister: I have no particular objection to taking a subsidy out of the Community if, under the rules, we are entitled to it. I have never seen any reason why we should not. We did not devise these arrangements—they were there—and as a result of the development of events, we are now securing a benefit from them. My hon. Friend

is right. I have no doubt that the time will come in other years when we may be a net contributor instead of a net receiver; we shall have to take the rough with the smooth in that respect.

Mr. Powell: Did the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to his colleagues that, so far from the green pound being a subsidy which keeps our food cheap, it is only a partial offset to what we lose from not being able to buy our food in the world markets?

The Prime Minister: I did not make that point because I am not sure that it is altogether true nowadays. There was a time when there was a lot of cheap food in the world, but those days are disappearing. It would be very difficult to take a balance of advantage and disadvantage on this. I am sure that there are commodities—I can think of some—which we would be able to buy more cheaply outside the Community, but there are others on which we would not get the advantage that we now have.
As for MCAs, if that is what they are called, I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman—indeed, I pointed this out—that they are of advantage to the exporters as well as to us. Perhaps such colleagues as the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) might approve of the fact that I pointed out to those who are in favour of the CAP that if they got rid of the monetary compensatory amounts, I doubted whether the CAP would survive.

Mr. Fernyhough: The Press have reported that while my right hon. Friend was attending this conference, he had a working breakfast with Herr Schmidt, the Federal Chancellor. At that working breakfast, did the Prime Minister discuss offset costs with Herr Schmidt? Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the signing of the Brussels agreement the figure must now be approaching £2,000 million? If the Germans would favourably consider what I think is a moral obligation that they undertook at that time, it would be helpful to this country in its present economic circumstances.

The Prime Minister: Talks are going on with regard to offset costs. I did not raise that matter with the Chancellor yesterday morning. I am well aware of the size and nature of those costs.


But there are countervailing factors which must also be taken into account, for example the fact that the presence of British troops in central Europe is a reassurance to a great many people in central Europe and, indeed, in Eastern Europe. That factor, too, must be taken into account when we are discussing where the net balance of advantage and disadvantage lies. There is no doubt that this is an important contribution and it is one which should not be overlooked by those who criticise our performance.

Mr. Marten: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his quick reading of an empty communiqué. It was brilliant. As I always take an objective view about the Common Market—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]. I do. May I challenge the Prime Minister on his use of the word "revise" with regard to the CAP? That is a policy which should be scrapped. The sooner we have a national agricultural policy suitable to this country the better.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the Common Market is more responsible than any other factor for putting up the price of food in this country and that by next year the situation will be serious for those on lower incomes?

The Prime Minister: We have constantly taken the view that the CAP needs to be substantially changed. We have to convince our other colleagues in the Community about that. There is dissatisfaction about it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, an examination is now going on about whether some aspects of our policy can be grafted on to the CAP itself. I should like to see this done.
At the start, two or three years ago, my own view was that we could make substantial changes pretty quickly. It is quite clear that the vested interests—I do not want to use a derogatory term —of those who benefit from the agricultural policy of the Community are so strong that none of the other governments can act very quickly. It will be a case constantly working at this, but I feel sure that we shall get some results in the end.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Prime Minister aware that in view of the wide range of subjects in his statement, and the fact that this was a high level meeting,

there will be great disappointment and anger in the fishing communities that the question of fisheries policy has not been mentioned? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since certain of the EEC countries, notably the French, have held that they are not obliged to sell out a vital national interest, the attitude of the British Government is inexplicable with regard to the fishing industry?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept any of that. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman means what he said because he is as aware as I am of all the work which is being done on fisheries. The matter was touched on but not gone into in depth because the constitutional channels of the Community are now handling this problem. I hope the hon. Gentleman has seen the statement put out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary as recently as 26th November—Thursday last—which brings the situation right up to date.

Mr. Spearing: The Prime Minister made some reference to the Commission. Can he confirm that the Government are making proposals for changes in the structure and functioning of the Commission? If that is so, can my right hon. Friend say to what ends those proposals will be and when we shall know the recommendations which may be made?

The Prime Minister: I asked at the last meeting but one of Heads of Government whether the Community might be prepared to consider proper terms of reference on which the Commission itself might act. Objection was taken by the Commission on the ground that one institution ought not make such a formal request to another institution of the Community. Therefore, the compromise, which met everyone's concerns, was that the Commission itself is expected to come forward with its own proposals on how it will handle the revision of procedures. Honour was satisfied all round.

Mr. Blaker: Was any consideration given to methods of concerting foreign policy? Would it not be useful if a small central secretariat were set up to deal with this subject? It might then mean some reductions in the staffs of the national Foreign Offices. Did the Prime Minister consider this matter?

The Prime Minister: This is an issue on which there is no common view. The hon. Gentleman, and others, will know that I have always taken the position that if there were a field in which it ought to be possible to reach a number of common attitudes, this was it. This view is not universally shared by all the member States. I am quite certain that the proposal to set up a central secretariat—subject to anything that my right hon. Friend has to say—would awaken all the fears which are now reasonably dormant. Like so many matters, we shall have to take this item by item and subject by subject. When they are raised by my right hon. Friend in the political co-operation area it will be seen whether it is possible to get a common view.
I take note of the fact that from 1st January three members of the Security Council are members of the Community —France, the Federal Republic and ourselves. That should at least engender a common approach to some of these problems, although not to the exclusion of the smaller nations.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The whole House will be pleased to hear that the Council thanked Mr. Tindemans for his report. Were any decisions made on the matters raised in that report and if not, are any further discussions planned? Secondly, would the Prime Minister agree that the main reason for rising food prices in this country is the fall in the value of the pound and not our membership of the EEC?

The Prime Minister: There was a long discussion about the Tindemans Report. It was generally agreed that European union can be built only gradually on the basis of existing treaties and community institutions. That was the first agreement which was reached. Therefore, progress will not be as fast as some would like.
It was also generally agreed that we should try to follow a common policy in certain key areas of foreign policy but there is at least one major State with important reservations. The Snake as the centrepiece of advance towards economic and monetary union was discarded as an idea although Foreign Ministers will continue to work on the basis of the Duisenberg proposals to see whether they offer any prospect.
In passing I would say that as long as the divergence between our economies is growing—and they are not converging—this kind of arrangement is unlikely to be successful. Work is going ahead on this, as it is on the whole question of social and regional policies. These are the major proposals, but I know it was agreed that the Foreign Ministers would review the Tindemans Report each year to see what could be taken from it in order to get a greater sense of unity between member States.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's interest in institutional progress, may I ask whether there was any discussion about the future rôle of the European Fund for Monetary Co-operation?

The Prime Minister: No progress was made at this meeting, I am afraid.

Mr. MacFarquhar: In the earlier bilateral talks, was any warning given of the strong attack which has been levelled by the French President on our green pound policy? Does the Prime Minister think that the French President, as distinct from vested French agricultural interests, takes on board the need for a drastic change in the CAP?

The Prime Minister: I can understand my hon. Friend's belief that a strong attack was made on the green pound policy when he read our newspapers yesterday. I must say that it does not represent the reality of the situation. It is one of the misfortunes that the Press is not present at these Council meetings and has to rely on the kind of briefing it gets afterwards from those who had particular issues that they wished to raise. As we all know, the Press is not necessarily disinterested on these occasions.
The attack was made not on the British green pound policy but on the system of monetary compensatory arrangements. At the present time, eight out of the Nine are affected by these compensatory payments in one way or another, either as net givers or net receivers. Only one country—Denmark—is not. [Interruption.] It is possible to be neutral. I was about to say that Denmark is the only country which is neutral.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Was there any discussion of direct elections, and was


the Prime Minister able to say that legislation would be brought forward in time for the British electorate to return directly-elected Members by the target date?

The Prime Minister: There was no discussion on that matter, so I did not make any comment myself.

Mrs. Hart: Am I right in reading between the rapid lines of my right hon. Friend's statement that there was not exactly any positive breakthrough on agreements in the EEC about attitudes towards the new international economic order and the North-South dialogue in terms of economic relations with the Third World? In the discussions, did he tend to share the constructive views of such members as the Netherlands and France on these matters, or the views of others?

The Prime Minister: I took our own view on this. I hope that this perhaps assures my right hon. Friend. There was a very long discussion on this matter, which is complicated by the fact that there will be a new American Administration coming into office in late January.
We have taken a particularly forward view on debt relief, on the common fund and on the integrated commodities programme. There are different views here. But everyone was agreed that, whatever technical differences might exist, it was important that the CIEC should be made successful, and we all undertook to bend our efforts to do so.

Mr. Hal Miller: When discussing EEC-Japan relations with his colleagues, did the Prime Minister tell them of the doubts expressed in this House about transferring control of our trade policy, especially with regard to dumping, to the EEC? In particular, did the right hon. Gentleman make it plain to them that his Government would not be willing to see the Japanese do to our motorcar industry what they did to our motorcycle industry?

The Prime Minister: Not precisely in that form. But there is general disquiet about relationships between Japan and the Community because the adverse trade balance between the Community and Japan has risen from about $300

million a year some four or five years ago to $3 billion a year now. It is that imbalance which must be put right.
I do not share the hon. Gentleman's fears about the consequences of transferring these negotiations. On the whole, I think this country will be stronger as a result of a central discussion of these matters with Japan than if we pursue them individually. I do not take that view on all matters, but I think that it will be the case with Japan.
As for dumping procedures, a number of complaints have been made. We have already indicated to the Commission, which is not, I think, yet responsible—I think that Britain is still responsible for her own dumping procedures—that, when they are transferred, we hope that the Commission will take up these matters quickly and prevent any delay in a range of complaints.

Mr. John Ellis: May I take my right hon. Friend back to one of his earlier replies when he was being pressed about the common agricultural policy and when he, I thought, said realistically that the nations of the European Common Market were conditioned by their own self- interest? This scarcely accords with the idea which was sold to this country when we agreed to go into Europe that we would all be a happy band of brothers helping each other. Is that the sort of attitude which is now causing my right hon. Friend to review his own attitude to the institution?

The Prime Minister: I do not remember ever advancing the possibility that we would be a happy band of brothers. I always argued that Britain would be able to serve her own interests inside the Community just as everyone else served theirs. I think that my hon. Friends have heard me make that case time after time. But there are many areas in which joint Community action can be more helpful to the people of Europe than individual action. We have just had an illustration. I take the issue of connections with Japan as being one such case. There are other illustrations in social matters and in terms of the possible convergence not of our economies but of the kind of policies that we are following where I believe that it is of advantage. In other words, I remain as pragmatic about this institution as I always was.

Mr. Peter Mills: Does the Prime Minister recognise that his failure to accept even a modest adjustment in the green pound may help the consumer in the short term but that in the long term it will have serious effects on home production? With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he talks about a lack of guts on the part of the Opposition, but when will he have the guts to do something about the long term, which is so important?

The Prime Minister: I always remember the old saying, "In the long run, we are all dead"—myself before the hon. Gentleman, who has the advantage of being much younger than I am. But we have the situation in which our agriculture has the possibilities of expansion, even under the present system, and that the negotiations on prices which take place every February give an opportunity to ensure that our agriculture does not fall behind.
It is a striking illustration of what I am saying if I remind the House that the efficiency of British agriculture is such that our milk producers still produce a very great deal of milk, even though it is costing rather more, but it is still below the continental price, and that if we adjusted in this way we should be producing very much more milk. That is an argument on the side of the farmers. But we have to balance that against the present need of consumers, and our anti-inflation policy must come first at the moment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have been on this for half an hour. We must move on now.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES (WEST MIDLANDS)

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Eyre: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the strike action today of public service employees in the West Midlands which is seriously affecting hospitals, schools, motorways and council services.

This day of chaos in the West Midlands has been brought about by the strike action of members of the National Union of Public Employees. Mr. Barry Shuttle-worth, the West Midlands divisional officer for that union, has stated publicly that the strike is in protest at public spending cuts.
As a result of the strike, a number of hospitals in Birmingham have been dealing with emergency cases only, the normal process of admissions of in-patients and the treatment of out-patients has been halted, because 80 per cent. of the ambulance staff have refused to deal with cases other than emergencies, and porters have restricted their performance of duties. Hospital catering arrangements have also been affected.
As for the motorways, some of the road gritting gangs did not report for work this morning, and a number of accidents have occurred in which road surface conditions are thought to have been a factor.
Schools also have been affected seriously by the strike of caretakers, although all caretakers have not taken part. As a result, 230 schools in Birmingham have been closed, as well as a number of schools in other parts of the West Midlands.
As the divisional officer of the union concerned has made clear, this strike is part of a direct confrontation with the Government. As a consequence, thousands of patients, schoolchildren and their parents, and other citizens have been gravely inconvenienced. In these circumstances, I submit that the conditions specified in Standing Order No. 9 apply.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the strike action today of public service employees in the West Midlands which is seriously affecting hospitals, schools, motorways and council services.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. The hon. Member gave me notice this morning that he would raise


this matter, and I have given careful consideration to his representations. However, I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Philippines) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (PROCEDURE)

4.21 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move,
That—
(1) in view of the serious consequences of uncertainty for the industries concerned and for those employed in them, this House affirms the opinion expressed in its resolution of 27th May 1976 in relation to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill introduced in the last Session of this Parliament that there should be no delay in the passage of legislation to provide for the vesting in bodies corporate established by authority of Parliament of the securities of certain companies engaged in manufacturing aircraft and guided weapons and of certain companies engaged in shipbuilding and allied industries, and accordingly the Order of 29th November that the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill of this Session is discharged and in relation to the proceedings on that Bill any Standing Orders relating to private business and consideration of the application of any such Standing Orders are dispensed with;
(2) in the event of the Bill being read a second time, it shall stand committed to a Committee of the whole House, and when the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, notwithstanding that Notice of an Instruction may have been given, and in the Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall forthwith put the Question that he do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House without putting any other Question, and the Question so put shall be decided forthwith.
This is a procedural motion, although it has political aspects in the background, and I would like to comment on those briefly at the beginning of my speech. I hope that the House will be prepared to pass this motion, no doubt after some discussion. The motion is in two parts, but it has one purpose, namely, to allow the House to assert its supremacy over the non-elected, irresponsible other place and to do so quickly and firmly.
Last Session this House passed a Bill to give effect to proposals to nationalise the aircraft and guided weapons, shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering industries—proposals which were clearly set out in the manifestos on which the Labour Party was returned to office in February and October 1974.
Their Lordships decided that they took exception to the nationalisation of


ship repairing. This House insisted on the restoration of ship repairing to the Bill, but the other place threw it out again, and then again. In doing so it threw out at the same time the doctrine that has been adhered to generally since the war by the Conservative majority in another place—the doctrine that it should not use its permanent built-in majority to defeat measures which were clearly included in the manifestos on which a Labour Government had been elected. That doctrine was accepted by the late Lord Salisbury. He was quoted as saying —and his views were enunciated again on the "Panorama" programme the other night—
Anything that had been on the programme of the Labour Party at the preceding Election we must regard as having been approved by the British people and therefore measures of that kind we must pass and do our best to improve. And so we did in fact pass all the nationalisation Bills, much though many of us disliked them.
That doctrine was accepted by the late Lord Salisbury, who was the leading Conservative authority on relations between the two Houses. It was a doctrine which seems to be the right approach to the matter. The modern proponents of "The Right Approach" in another place seem to be on the wrong tack. I think that it could lead to considerable constitutional difficulties if that course were to be pursued and, worse still, were to be sustained by this elected House of Commons. We may, perhaps, come back to this new attitude on the part of their Lordships in the course of the debate, if any Conservative Members wish to discuss it.
I now turn to the motion which the attitude of the other place has made necessary if this House is to reaffirm its supremacy. I would have thought that all hon. Members would wish it to do so. Certainly Labour Members would. I should have thought that Liberal Members, if they had any allegiance to their traditions on this issue—whatever criticisms they have of the Government on other matters—would wish to support us on this occasion. This is, after all, a constitutional question and not one concerned solely with the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on, will

he clarify one passing reference which he made to the grave constitutional innovation which he sees if this House refuses to rubber-stamp the manifesto of the Labour Party?

Mr. Foot: It was not a question of rubber-stamping the manifesto of the Labour Party. I was quoting the doctrine that had been accepted and laid down by the late Lord Salisbury. I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point in a moment, but I was talking about Lord Salisbury's doctrine. I shall reiterate it because the hon. Gentleman did not seem to appreciate what I said. My attitude to the other place ranges over many wider questions. I was quoting to the hon. Gentleman what was said by the late Lord Salisbury about what he thought should be the proper relationship between the two Houses. His view was different from that of the present Leader of the Conservative Party in another place.
The view of the late Lord Salisbury was that the other place should take into account what had appeared in Labour Party manifestos. That view has now been set aside by the peers and particularly by the Leader of the Conservative Party in another place. All that I was saying to the House was that relations between the two Houses would be very much easier if the doctrine accepted by Lord Salisbury were sustained, rather than the novel doctrine operated by Lord Carrington and his supporters in another place.

Mr. Peter Rost: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that Labour Party manifesto also specified that the Socialist programme would be financed on borrowed money?

Mr. Foot: The programme which the Labour Party presented to the nation in February and October 1974 warned the country that we were faced with the gravest economic crisis since the war, thanks to the policies of the Conservative Government, supported by the hon. Gentleman. Certainly that part of our manifesto has been proved more true even, perhaps, than we knew at the time.
I turn to the first part of the motion, which makes clear that we intend to treat this Bill as it was treated during


the last Session by this House and by the other place, and to proceed with it as a public Bill. Last Session the question of hybridity was not raised in this House until after the Committee stage, and the one question on which a doubt was raised was dealt with fully before the Bill left this House. In another place the Bill was not referred to the Examiners, although there was ample opportunity when this could have happened. All the points raised there were fully and carefully answered, as anyone who studies the debates and the answers given to Lord Campbell and Lord Wigoder will see.
The second part of the motion is as essential as the first to the re-assertion of the position of this House. It provides that the Committee stage of the Bill shall be taken formally, so that the effect of the motion, taken by itself, is that the next stage of the Bill, after the formal Committee stage, will be Third Reading. It does so because the Committee stage can be no more than a formality if this House, as I trust it will, wishes to ensure that the Bill is sent back to their Lordships in the form in which it can, if necessary, proceed to Royal Assent under the Parliament Acts.
This part of the motion asks the House to affirm that it wants the Bill in the form in which it passed it last year, after the greatest number of Committee sittings of any Bill in all recorded time. It does so in very much the same form in which the issue was presented to the House last year in relation to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, and will therefore, I hope, commend itself to the House. The motion follows the precedents of 1913 and 1914, when a similar motion covered three Bills, and 1948 and 1949, when a similar procedure was required.
However, although we are asking the House to pass the Bill with all dispatch in a form that will allow it, if necessary, to proceed to the Royal Assent under the Parliament Acts, we do not intend to deprive the House of the opportunity to consider any amendments that right hon. and hon. Members may wish to propose should be suggested to another place under the provisions of the Parliament Acts. We shall provide time for such suggested amendments to be debated before the Bill receives its Third Reading.
I commend the motion to the House. I believe that on general and particular grounds the House as a whole, certainly those who agree with the supremacy of this elected House, will agree with it.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: We reject this motion and we reject the arguments of the Leader of the House. He talked about the supremacy of this House. I think that he exaggerated the manifesto argument which has, in some respects, got completely out of hand in our debates. This House recognises the sense in which one could say that it has a certain supremacy, but their Lordships also have a rôle to play within Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt upon what he described as the late Lord Salisbury's doctrine. He conveniently omitted to add what the late Lord Morrison said, when the 1947 Parliament Act was passed, about the proper rôle of the House of Lords and its rights in sending back Bills or parts of Bills. Unless another place has such rights there is no point in its taking part in debates.
It is unreasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to claim that this motion has been made necessary by the Lords. It has not. What has been made necessary is the reintroduction of the Bill under the Parliament Act. It was never envisaged that the Act would be used in a way that would require a guillotine of such fantastic sharpness to be part of it. The purpose of the Parliament Act was to give Parliament another opportunity to consider a Bill that the Lords, upon reflection on more than one occasion, had deemed to require more consideration. The idea that a procedure like this should be introduced is a novel doctrine. It is wrong, and we disagree with it.
This motion is a double-edged guillotine, seeking to suspend Standing Orders for two different purposes. It is a monster which we have never seen here before. Certainly paragraph (1) of the motion is entirely new. I do not think that anything like it has ever appeared before. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was, to say the least, thin, and in no way adequate to so major a departure. The subsection affirms the opinion expressed many months ago, that there should be no delay. Accordingly, it sets aside the Order in relation to


hybridity. There is no precedent for this being done in this way. I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman that during our debate on 27th May in defending the motion that he presented to the House, he said:
We are making a proposal to deal with it that does not set a precedent for future occasions".
That seemed to be a pretty clear indication that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to do it once only. When he was pressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), the Lord President said:
It sets a precedent only if one has exactly similar conditions relating to the two industries concerned."—[Official Report, 27th May 1976; Vol. 912, c. 750–53.]
But these are not exactly the same conditions. The hybridity case will be made in detail later by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and, no doubt, other hon. Members. The Lord President give a clear indication that he would not seek to do anything like this again. Yet, six months later, he is doing exactly the same thing.
Paragraph (2) of the motion has been used before. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the debate on 9th December and the precedents relating to this, but there is one new feature in this motion, in its opening words:
in the event of the Bill being read a second time".
No such motion has been presented in this way before.
I wish to refer to the changed circumstances that face the House, and the changes which have occurred since the last time we debated the Bill. They are different because, as the Lord President reminded us, on the previous occasion the hybridity question arose at a late stage in the passage of the Bill. That is not the present situation, because we have not yet had the Second Reading.
During the debate on 27th May the Lord President made great play of the fact that the situation was unprecedented, because Standing Order 38 did not envisage that a challenge on the grounds of hybridity could be made so late in the passage of a Bill. The Lord President also made great play of the fact that on Second Reading the House had shown by a large

majority that it wanted the Bill, and he claimed that that entirely altered the nature of Standing Order No. 38. That is not the position today. Circumstances are different; we have not yet had the Second Reading.
We must consider whether we are departing from the proper procedures to be followed in the House. We have a procedure relating to hybridity, and the application made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton was found to contain evidence which required that procedure to be followed and that the Bill should be examined from this point of view in order to safeguard individuals.
The protection in our procedures relating to hybridity is intended to ensure equality and fairness of treatment between one citizen and another and between people in the same class or category. It is a subject that has recurred in our debates over the years.
It has been brought to my attention, Mr. Speaker, that in 1962 one of your predecessors said:
I accept the true position to be this, that if it be possible for the view to be taken that this Bill is a Hybrid Bill, it ought to go to the examiners. There must not be a doubt about it."—[Official Report, 10th December 1962; Vol. 669, c. 45.]
That is not the procedure that we followed in May this year, when hybridity was discovered at a late stage in the Bill, and the Lord President made great play with that argument then. The position is different today, because the ruling was made by the Clerks only a day or two ago, before Second Reading, and therefore the proper procedures have been set aside.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Another difference is that on the last occasion when this nasty procedure was introduced the Lord President's excuse was that he was going to remove hybridity by amendments to the Bill before we dealt with it fully. On this occasion he knows that the Bill is hybrid and he intends to leave it as hybrid—it is certified as such—and therefore his offence is all the more disgusting.

Mr. Pym: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) says. This is a serious matter, and I want to point


out what the Lord President said on 27th May. He then said:
I believe that many of our most essential freedoms are intimately linked with the procedures of the House."—[Official Report, 27th May 1976; Vol. 912, c. 748.]
He was entirely right to say that, but there is more to it. It is a matter not simply of following our procedures as laid down in Standing Orders but of the operation and execution of them in their spirit as well as their meaning. The Lord President is not even following the words of our Standing Orders and proceedings in this motion; he is setting them aside for his own purposes. I do not think that he is fulfilling his own words that our freedoms are essentially linked with the procedures of the House.
This motion is an abuse of our procedures, our democracy and our Standing Orders. It is totally wrong for the Government even to contemplate it. It concerns me very much that the Lord President, who should speak on behalf of the whole House, should take it upon himself, without consultation or recognition of the view of the official Opposition or anybody else, to set aside our procedures. It is particularly wrong that a Lord President should do this. During debates in the summer, the right hon. Gentleman readily admitted that in a different incarnation he had taken a different point of view—and we remember the passion with which he took it—but the minute he gets into his present job he claims that procedure is a tool in his hand to attack the Opposition and anybody else who disagrees with him, so long as he can carry his own party with him.
That is an abuse of procedure, and completely wrong. It is for the Examiners, not the Government, to decide the hybridity of the Bill. Our procedures say that this is a decision for the Examiners. No argument has been adduced by the Leader of the House in relation to another place or to anything else which justifies his putting down such a severe and vicious double-headed guillotine.
The Government must get their legislation right. If they fail, it is their fault. The details of the hybridity case will be put by my hon. Friends, and the responsibility lies with the Government. They

have their Departments and their draftsmen. Their official support does a superb job, but if, every so often, it comes out wrong and a Bill falls foul of our procedures, it is no answer to put down such a motion and expect the House to take a different view because the Government are wrong.
If the Government had not been so greedy, they could have had 80 per cent. of the Bill without any fuss. It is because they wanted it all that they have had to bring it all back, introduce the Parliament Act, break the rules, and expect us to think that nothing extraordinary, wrong or unusual is happening.
The Leader of the House has not acted well in his capacity as guardian of the liberty and responsibilities of the House. I have no hesitation in asking my hon. Friends, as well as hon. Members on the Government Benches, many of whom must be just as uneasy as we are about what is being done here, to reject the motion. We heard many hon. Members on the Government Benches expressing their unease about the Bill earlier this year.
The Government do not have a licence to run this place as they think fit, to vote all our procedures out of the window and to do as they like. What is Parliament all about? I do not like the rules being broken in the middle of the game. The excuse used in May does not apply, because we have not yet had the Second Reading. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to chuck out the motion.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) correctly said, the Government have usurped a function which is not theirs. The function of deciding whether a Bill is hybrid is one entrusted to the Examiners. Once they have decided that a Bill is hybrid, the function of deciding whether we should suspend Standing Orders in respect of that Bill is not one which appertains to the Government—whatever their political complexion. That function appertains to the Standing Orders Committee.
The Government have abrogated unto themselves the judicial function of the Examiners and the advisory function of the Standing Orders Committee.
At no stage has the Leader of the House justified to the House why the Examiners, in his view, cannot be trusted to carry out their judicial function or why the Standing Orders Committee cannot be trusted to carry out its important function of advising the House.
The Standing Orders Committee is unique among our Select Committees in being appointed not by Government motion but by the Committee of Selection. It is an important Committee with an important duty to discharge.
The Leader of the House now presumes to take that duty upon his own shoulders. The right hon. Gentleman would not invite the House to believe that he is not partisan. His whole career as Leader of the House has been a shoddy one. He has taken upon himself as a partisan the functions of bodies properly constituted to undertake them on behalf of the House.

Mr. Tebbit: So did Mussolini.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is correct.
In the last Session, the House of Lords decided, by a majority so substantial that it would still have existed had no Conservative peers voted, to delete ship repairing from the Bill. One of the most important reasons for that decision was that the Members of another place were convinced not just that the ship repairing section contained one technical hybridity but that it was so peppered with hybridities that there was no way of removing them other than by the removal of the whole ship repairing section.
When the Bill was going through this House and the hybridity was detected, the Government disreputably tried to blame the Clerks and said that they should have spotted it. When the incompetence was pinned on the Government, they pretended that it was only a technical hybridity—just a little baby—and by one dishonest vote they succeeded in passing a motion to prevent the Examiners and the Standing Orders Committee from carrying out their proper functions.
However, notwithstanding the amendment to get rid of the Key Victoria issue, the Bill is still hybrid in a multiplicity of examples in the ship repairing section.
Why have the Government refused even now to allow the Bill to go to the Examiners or to the Standing Orders Committee? It is because they know that what I have said is true and they do not wish to have the final judgment of the Examiners confirming their own incompetence or worse—and, alas, it is worse. There has been not just negligence but a deliberate attempt by the Government to conceal relevant information from Parliament and to mislead another place in Written Answers.
First, the Government tried to blame the Clerks. Then they claimed that the hybridity was only a technicality. They then descended to a form of chicanery which should be held in contempt by all hon. Members, albeit it was practised upon another place rather than upon this House.
It was necessary, by tabling many Questions in another place, to ascertain many of the relevant facts both about firms which were included in the list for nationalisation on page 82 of the Bill and about firms which were not included although they fulfilled all the qualifying conditions for inclusion.
There are two distinct categories of hybridity. There are firms included in the list although they do not meet the qualifying conditions and firms not included even though they do meet the qualifying conditions.
This is what hybridity is about. It is when fiddles of this kind are perpetrated that the whole process of legislation and government falls into disrepute. There can be no better example of the deliberate deception and dishonesty of the Government than the correspondence between Tate and Lyle—a holding company which owns Richards (Shipbuilders) Ltd., the Sugar Line Ltd., and Clyde Wharf Limited—and the Department of Industry.
Lord Peart answered Questions in the House of Lords on 6th October 1976 and reference to Richards (Shipbuilders) Limited appears in Lords Hansard in column 1485. Richards (Shipbuilders) Limited fulfils all the qualifying conditions for being taken into public ownership but it has been excluded. Lord Peart said:
It follows that Sugar Line Limited was not engaged in the business of repairing, refitting


or maintaining ships at the end of that year." —[Official Report, House of Lords; 6th October, 1976, Vol. 374, c. 1486, 1487.]
The Group Financial Controller of Tate and Lyle, Mr. N. A. Birrell, wrote to Mr. R. A. Dearing, Deputy Secretary at the Department of Industry on 8th October 1976 as follows:
Dear Mr. Dearing,
Mr. D. W. Hardy, our Finance Director, wrote to you on 29th September confirming certain facts with regard to the operation of Richards (Shipbuilders) Limited, Sugar Line Limited and Clyde Wharf Limited.
It has been drawn to my attention that in Hansard for 6th October 1976 there is the following sentence:
'It follows that Sugar Line Limited was not engaged in the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships at the end of that year.'
In case there should be any misunderstanding we wish to put on record that we, as any other good ship owner, are in the business of maintaining our own ships. I am just writing to you to ensure that the record is straight and I would like to confirm that during the financial year ended 29th September, 1973, the situation was as laid out in our letter to you of 29th September, 1976.
Back came a letter from the Government in which they claim the right to conceal the facts and mislead Parliament. [Interruption.] The letter, dated 11 th October 1976, came from Mr. R. A. Dearing at the Department of Industry and was addressed to Mr. N. A. Birrell. It said:
Dear Mr. Birrell,
Thank you for your letter of 8th October about the passage in Hansard for 6th October which deals with certain aspects of the activities of companies in the Tate and Lyle group.
It is certainly understood on our side that the statement made to Parliament that
'It follows that Sugar Line Limited was not engaged in the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships at the end of that year'
is one made on the responsibility of the Department. It was fully understood between us at the meeting that your company was being asked only to provide certain factual information in relation to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill and it was not a matter on which the company was offering comment; such inferences as were to be drawn would be for the Department to make and justify.
In other words Parliament must be denied the facts, and the Government will deliberately mislead Parliament and keep it in ignorance of the facts.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): If the hon. Member refers to the answers in the House of Lords Hansard he will see that Lord Peart makes it clear that the statements of fact are derived from the companies, but the inference is that of the Government. We do not expect the companies to interpret what is in the Bill. The hon. Member is concealing that from the House in order to make a fraudulent point.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: But the question at issue is this—was the company in business on 31st July 1974 engaged in repairing, refitting or maintaining ships? Does the company meet that qualifying point? The Memorandum of Association of Sugar Line Limited, an associated company, and the company with which we are now concerned, includes this item:
The objects for which the company is established are (a) to purchase or otherwise acquire, contract for the building of, equip and maintain and alter ships and vessels, aircraft and land vehicles of every description.
In the Memorandum of Association it gives one of the objectives of the company as that of maintaining ships. That is part of its business.
There is nothing in this Bill whatever which says that the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships must be the repairing, refitting or maintaining of ships which do not belong to the company concerned. The Government may wish that they had put that in the Bill, but they did not. They have endeavoured to mislead Parliament in a clear case of hybridity so that that hybridity would be concealed from Parliament.
The reason the Hansard of another place is available in the Vote Office of the House of Commons is so that Members of this House can, among other things, see the replies given by Ministers in another place and accept them as if they had been given in this House. The Government have tried a lot of spurious arguments. They have claimed, among other things, that a company is not in the business of repairing or maintaining ships if it repairs, maintains or refits its own ships. But there is nothing to say that in the Bill anywhere. This is a classsic example of a company being wrongly excluded from the Bill—a company which meets all the criteria for


inclusion. Naturally the Examiners would have seen that just as clearly as the Public Bill Office did.
There are many examples. The London Graving Dock Company was included in the Bill although it does not, in fact, fulfil the conditions because it was not, on 31st July 1974, engaged in the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships. My evidence for saying that is letters from the London Graving Dock itself, and one assumes it would know. The managing director of the company, Mr. Donald S. Crighton, wrote on 21st March 1975 to the then Secretary of State for Industry. His letter said:
Dear Mr. Benn,
I am writing to you direct as time does not permit an approach through the usual channels.
Together with the Boilermaker's Society, this company is endeavouring to decasualise all trades on the London River. This can be achieved by obtaining additional work which is currently available if we had additional investment to create the necessary facilities to construct the submersible pontoons and SPM's etc.
The necessary funds could be obtained quickly by disposing of certain non-shiprepairing assets and companies which will not fit the new nationalised corporation. Two years ago we placed our entire ship repairing operation under the control of LGD Ship Repairers Limited; London Graving Dock Company Limited no longer repairs ships.
That was on 21st March 1975, yet the Government claim that that firm meets the requirements of the Bill.
On 31st July 1974—which is the date specified in the Bill—the London Graving Dock Co. was not engaged in the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships. It therefore does not meet the necessary qualifying condition given at the beginning of the Bill which I quoted.
There is further correspondence between Mr. E. V. Marchant at the Department of Industry, who is replying on behalf of Mr. Wedgwood Benn, and that firm. Writing back again on 8th April 1975 is Mr. F. J. Eaton, the company secretary. He is writing because Mr. Crighton's fellow directors want the company to be nationalised. Mr. Crighton, on the other hand, believes that there is a certain duty of honesty and truth both to the Government and Parliament. The company secretary takes over the task, as Mr. Crighton is not

prepared to help pull the wool over the eyes of Parliament. Mr. F. J. Eaton writes a letter to Mr. Marchant at the Department of Industry in which he says in the third paragraph:
At the meeting of the board of directors on April 8, 1975 it was recognised that the group contains activities which, when viewed as a whole, fall within the definitions laid down. Included amongst the group are, however, activities which do not fall within that definition. Because of group reorganisations, the activities of the London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. are now in the form of a holding central services company but the company continues to hold title to various assets which are used elsewhere in the group for ship repairing purposes. Thus, neither LGD Ship Repairs Ltd. nor the London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. in isolation appear to satisfy the definitions, but these two companies together with other companies in the group engaged in ship repairing, or closely related activities, which collectively satisfy the definitions. We therefore reply to your numbered paragraphs in the context of the above situation as follows:—
1. We believe that the London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. with its other subsidiaries, excluding the Electrical Mechanical Industrial Division comprising Ayrodev Processes Ltd., Ayrodev Processes (U.K.) Ltd., Devroome Developments Ltd., and Ayr Engineering and Constructional Co. Ltd., is the company which most nearly meets the criteria set down.
A company does not say that it most nearly meets the criteria if it meets them.
Clearly, the managing director having been forbidden by his board to communicate truth to the Department, and the secretary of the Company having been given the job of trying to accommodate the Department to back up this untruthful representation to Parliament, we get this unhappy situation that, even when given that task, the secretary has to say not that the company has met the conditions laid down in the Bill but that it is the company which most nearly meets the criteria set down.
I turn to Westminster Dredging Co. Ltd., which meets all the criteria in the Bill but is not included in the list to be found on page 82. The Government say that it does not fulfil the qualifying condition (a), because it was not engaged in the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships for the following reasons. The first given is that the company has from time to time carried out repairs of its own vessels. Certainly it has, but that brings it into the Bill, it does not exclude it.
The second reason given is that on rare and irregular occasions it performs repair work on pontoon vessels for one fellow member of the same group. Indeed it did, but that again brings it into the Bill.
Thirdly, the Government say that this work was done on a non-profit-making basis. There is nothing in the Bill which says that a business has to be making profits. If it were a requirement for a firm to be profitable before it is taken into public ownership, Scott Lithgow—and indeed most of the names—would not be found on pages 81 and 82 of the Bill. That clearly is not one of the conditions.
Fourthly, the Government say that it was not in any way a separate business. The Bill does not require that it should be a separate business.
Fifthly, the Government say that its principal activity is and was dredging and land reclamation. So it may well be, but the Bill does not require that the maintaining, refitting or repairing of ships should be the principal business.
Sixthly, the Government say that the company did not at any time hold itself out to be or regard itself as a ship repairer. Nowhere in the Bill does it say that it has to hold itself out as being a ship repairer.
Let us look at the Memorandum of Association of the Westminster Dredging Co. Ltd., item 3 of which reads as follows:
1. To carry on the business of dredging and general contractors, builders, mechanical, electrical and civil engineers, manufacturers of machinery, lightermen, ship and boat owners, builders and hirers, wharfingers, quarry masters and owners, cement manufacturers, cement and timber merchants, miners, mine owners … builders and repairers of all kinds of ships and craft".
If the Government consider that the Memorandum of Association is totally irrelevant, it can only be because they have not read it—and hope that the House has not read it, in which they are mistaken.
As to it being a firm repairing only its own vessels, between 27th July and 9th August 1972 it repaired the dredger "Savik" belonging to the borough of Preston, as the Clerk of Preston Council has certified. As for the company not holding itself out as being in the repair

business, the Clerk of Preston Council has confirmed that his council, as others, cannot put out work of this kind except by tender. It was indeed put out by tender.
Between 19th and 28th November 1973 the cargo ship "Vilya" belonging to Coronet Shipping was repaired. Between 10th and 17th May 1974 the tanker "Humeranto", belonging to C. W. van Meel, was repaired. Evidently the Preston Council was a satisfied customer, because between 19th and 24th March 1975 it came back again with a dredger called "Robert Weir".
Even if it is relevant, which it is not, for the Government to claim
For the purposes of paragraph 1 above a company is a ship repairing company if—
(a) on 31st July 1974 it was engaged in the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships
there is no question whatever but that the Westminster Dredging Co. Ltd. is wrongly excluded from the Bill, because it does not appear in the list on page 82 although it meets the requirements.
It is no part of my case that the Government should have sought to take into public ownership certain firms that they are not seeking to take into public ownership in the Bill, or that they should not have taken into public ownership via the Bill certain firms that met the qualifying conditions. They were entitled to do any of those things if they had written into the Bill the necessary criteria. In fact, the Government have misdrafted the Bill so badly that its criteria includes firms that they do not want to nationalise as well as firms that they want to nationalise. They have arbitrarily stuck the firms in the list in page 22, or excluded them from that list. That is the kindest way of putting it.
We shall never know what went on behind the scenes. Parliament will never know what deals were done by the Government to exclude certain firms despite the fact that they fall within the criteria or to include other firms despite the fact that they do not fall within them. We shall never know what deals the Government did, nor shall we know why they included firms that did not meet the criteria and excluded those that met them. All we know is that they included firms in the list in page 82 that do not meet the criteria and excluded firms that do


meet them. That is the essence of hybridity. Refusal to face that fact is the godfather of corruption.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member knows about that.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The institutions of the Examiner, the Standing Orders Committee and the Select Committee are the vehicles for ensuring that nothing improper takes place. Those are the institutions that have been set up by Parliament over many years to ensure that the taint of corruption is absent from Government. By cutting away those three instruments that were set up for the avoidance of corruption and the taint of corruption, the Government have taken upon themselves to do these shady and improper things. They have done so by avoiding the instruments that Parliament itself set up so that this sort of thing should not happen.
That is why all Members owe it to themselves to ensure that the instruments that Parliament has appointed—namely, the Examiner, the Standing Orders Committee and the Select Committee, or, exceptionally, a Joint Committee of the two Houses—are allowed to function so that legislation can be seen to be above board, honest and absent from dirty dealings behind the scenes. The Government, by cutting out these instruments, if the motion is passed, are asking Parliament to do a disgraceful thing to itself. I trust that it will not do so.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I had no intention of speaking in this debate when I entered the Chamber, but, having listened to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I feel obliged to do so.
It is an honourable tradition in this House to pursue detail, even nitpicking detail, in the defence of freedom and liberty. History is full of individuals who have pursued constitutional point after constitutional point to ensure that we legislate properly in the interests of freedom and liberty. It is an honourable tradition for Members of this place to focus their attention on a particular subject and to make a reputable public name for themselves on that one issue. How-

ever, what has taken place this afternoon has little to do with freedom and liberty. In this context there is no individual facing unjust treatment.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: That is what Hitler said.

Mr. Buchan: On the contrary, Hitler happened to massacre 6 million Jews.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) will not pause in his speech when he hears what is clearly a remark from a Member in a sedentary position.

Mr. Buchan: When interjections are made with sufficient loudness it is difficult to avoid hearing them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) referred to Hitler. Earlier, the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) made a reference to Mussolini. Those comparisons have been made.
I repeat that it is an honourable tradition to fight in the interests of freedom and liberty to defend the poor and the oppressed, but we are witnessing a campaign that has been undertaken in the interests of a conspiracy between the reactionary elements in this place and those in another place. Of course, there is a case for reactionaries to be Members of this place. That is part of our democratic tradition too. They have that right, and the people have a right to elect them. There is a conspiracy between the reactionary elements and members of an unelected, privileged and unrepresentative body.
We have been told that the Bill is peppered with hybridity. Those who make that claim took a long time to make the discovery. They made it during the dying stages of the Bill. They have used every possible method to hold back the Bill, defeat it and wreck it. They have continued with that campaign, and now we are told that the Bill is peppered with hybridity. I can recognise a sieve or a colander when I see it, but if the Bill is so full of holes as Opposition Members suggest, the scrutiny that they gave it originally must have been extremely poor. In fact, that suggestion is a nonsense, and Opposition Members know it.
We are now told by the hon. Member for Tiverton, who has left his place, that the Government have behaved disgracefully. He accuses the House. No doubt he will remember that the House, by a majority, supported the Government. We are now seeking by a third method to try to get the Bill through.
I remember that four years ago the House discussed a measure affecting the freedoms, liberties and democratic rights of the House and the Government. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was the Government Chief Whip when that was done. That measure was not discussed on Report. No amendments were accepted. The guillotine was used. That was the greatest invasion of the sovereign democratic rights of the British people that we have ever seen. That Act was conducted under the generalship of the right hon. Gentleman, who now has the impertinence to attack us. I am dubious therefore about the Opposition's motivation.
Incidentally, the House of Lords has not leapt to the attack to protect the poor or the oppressed whose liberty is at stake, but it has acted now in the defence of certain interests by claiming to find hybridity. Its actions have been prompted by a desire to try to wreck the Bill. It excluded a whole section of the Bill. That is how it has acted. That is the same House of Lords that did not introduce a single amendment to the European Communities Bill, notwithstanding its destruction of the democratic powers of this place. There was no attempt by their Lordships to try to defend the democratic structures of this place or this country.
Do not let the people at the other end of the corridor preach to us about constitutional rights. They clearly preach to Conservative Members because they come to this place like lapdogs and lackeys to reproduce the arguments. The unholy conspiracy of the Tory Party, the SNP and the House of Lords is threatening the democratic position of the majority of the British people.
There are grave issues involved. The people on Clydeside, the area from which I come, do not appreciate this sort of nitpicking in defence of business interests. We have already seen the first result of the nitpicking with the closure of the

Stephens Yard. Between 200 and 300 men have been thrown out of work in the past week. That is the result of the behaviour of the SNP, the Tory Party and the House of Lords.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: It is not in the Bill. Tell the truth.

Mr. Buchan: I always try to tell the truth. When I am faulted in the truth by the Scottish National Party, I shall indeed be in deadly trouble. The SNP has lied its way in propaganda in Scotland for five years, I am repeating the words of the leader of the workers, Jimmy Ramsay, who attributed the blame for the closure directly to there being no means of having the yard taken over by another. That is the truth. It has nothing to do with whether it was in the Bill or not. That was the first sacrifice, the first victim, of the failure to get the Bill through.
The jobs of tens of thousands of other workers are at stake as a result of what has happened. If I am asked to chose between the well-being of the people at the other end of the corridor in the House of Lords and the well-being of the people on Clydeside, I choose the latter. That is the issue at stake.
If there were one individual whose liberty or freedom was at stake or who was being oppressed by this action, I should listen with more respect to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for Tiverton. I respect the hon. Gentleman for having raised this matter. That is the way in which we should work. But, having raised it, it is for this House to examine it and to decide democratically how we should proceed.
I am told that we are going against the democratic structures of this place because we have various Committees whose task it is to defend our rights or to look at the hybridity with which the Bill is supposed to be peppered. But those Committees are not of themselves the institutions to protect us against corruption and to ensure that nothing improper takes place. On the contrary, they are Committees whose purpose is to serve this House. It is we who ensure that nothing improper taks place.
What we are doing today is properly to establish the priority of the position


of this House and the Floor of this House in regard to the institutions within it. That is what we are doing and that is what we should be doing. We have had enough of the hypocritical humbug and rubbish which has come from the Opposition. I have nothing but contempt for this excuse for holding up the passage of the Bill, because it is sacrificing the livelihoods of thousands of workers whom I represent.

5.23 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I should like to make two brief observations to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), to whom I always listen with interest, though by no means always with agreement.
First, the persuasiveness of argument is often in inverse ratio to the intemperance of the language used to advance it. Secondly, one cannot or should not be selective in the application of the protection of the law and the freedom which it provides. One may not pick and choose and say "To this man I shall accord it, because I like his views" and "To that man I shall deny it, because I do not like his views." That is a denial of freedom which I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would not wish to pursue.
I am grateful for the opportunity of adding a word on this latest instalment of the sad and squalid saga of the Government's efforts to deny to Parliament and people the procedures and protection which the law provides for Hybrid Bills. I should make clear that my pejorative epithets apply only to the Government's action. As a compensating factor, the matter has evoked a commendable display of energy, industry and resolve on the part of many Members of both Houses and of all parties.
Events have taken a predictable course. Nobody who has studied the facts and the unsatisfactory explanations and purported justifications of Ministers in another place in the last two months could have expected any finding other than one of prima facie hybridity with the consequential application of Standing Order No. 38 and reference to the examiners.
Equally predictable was the Government's reaction in the face of the clear facts of the situation. Nobody who has studied the pattern of their conduct on the Bill could have expected, to what ever dwindling hopes they might cling any action by the Government other than resort to every expedient, however constitutionally disreputable, that might help them to evade the duties which the law and practice of Parliament lay upon them.
Therefore, we have this predictable situation: an order of the House for the examination of the Bill under Standing Order No. 38 based on fact and reason and the Government's effort to suppress it, deriving from a compound of obstinacy, ignorance and authoritarianism.
On 8th November last, as may be seen in columns 105 to 107 in Hansard, I drew attention to the fact that, following a series of exploratory questions in the House of Lords, a clear case had been made out for hybridity in the ship repairing provisions of the Bill. I said that a full and proper opportunity for debate should be provided for the proper investigation of the matter, which was clearly impossible under the proposed guillotine procedure. That was right and it is now proved to be so. Equally my plea fell on deaf ears within the Government.
Of course, on the facts now established the ship repairing provisions make this a Hybrid Bill. I say "the facts now established" because only patient and persevering interrogation by certain noble Lords has wrung from a reluctant Government the facts which they were under a positive and peremptory duty to ascertain and present to Mr. Speaker before asking for a Second Reading in the last Session. The Government have failed in their duty, but the other House has done its duty conscientiously and well.
Of course the Bill is a hybrid. The case or ship repairing is even clearer and more cogent than the case on shipbuilding in the last Session. Then it was a case of one ship and one yard. Now we have a cloud of witnesses, an accumulation of contradictions, and a diversity of disparity of treatment of private interests, which add up to what lawyers call an open and shut case.
The definition of a Hybrid Bill given by a former Speaker is:
A Public Bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category or class.
In the ship repairing provisions we have a double dose of hybridity. Some companies have been excluded which, on a proper understanding and application of the qualifying conditions, should have been omitted. Others have been omitted which, on those conditions, should be included. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), in a very full and comprehensive speech, referred to some of those companies.

Mr. Foot: If, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, this is an open and shut case of hybridity—I certainly contest that strongly—why should the Lords not have taken that view and sent the Bill to the Examiners and had the examination there?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: It is an open and shut case when the facts are known. If the Bill goes back to the other place in this form—if this motion succeeds, contrary to all the merits—no doubt that course will be taken in the other place.

Mr. Foot: What are the facts which have come out since the House of Lords looked at the matter and considered whether to have the hybridity examined? The House of Lords, despite the open and shut case, decided not to take that action.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Because it felt that the Bill failed as a Bill in any event, and it does. The right hon. Gentleman—perhaps I may have his attention; he had mine—must try to be logical about this matter. The fact that there is one vice in the Bill does not prevent there being another vice. It has two vices. It is bad in its content and it is a hybrid. Those are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, they are cumulative vices in this single Bill.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for permitting me to intervene a third time. That might have been the view of the House of Lords on the first or second occasion. but when the Bill went back for the

third time, surely they might then have said that the question of hybridity might be raised in one form or another. Surely at some stage, if it was so unfair a proposal, the House of Lords should have taken action.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Of course the question of hybridity was canvassed in the House of Lords and I have referred to it. Surely the Leader of the House is not suggesting that because something has not been done in the House of Lords it cannot be done here.

Mr. Foot: rose—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman when I come to a semi-colon.
It is paradoxical that the right hon. Gentleman, who makes such scathing indictments of the other place, and who, at any rate in those now seemingly dim and distant days before he assumed the office of Leader of the House, was a great guardian of the rights of this House, now says that because this was not dealt with in another place this House is estopped from doing its duty.

Mr. Foot: I am not suggesting that this House is stopped. My intervention arose from the right hon. Gentleman saying that there was an open and shut case of hybridity. If the case was as open and shut as he claims, why did the House of Lords fail to refer the matter to the Examiners so that the so-called open and shut case could be dealt with? Perhaps they did not agree that it was an open and shut case.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman and I are unable to interpret the minds of the Members of the House of Lords. Perhaps the House of Lords thought that this democratically elected House should be given an opportunity to do in this Session what the arbitrary conduct of the Leader of the House prevented it from doing in the last Session.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. Was not the reason most probably that, as the House of Lords had decided to cut out by amendment the section on ship repairing, it believed that if it had referred to it to the Examiners —which would have taken several weeks—the same Leader of the House who


castigates it for not referring the matter would have said that it was using a procedural device to waste time?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: That somewhat melancholy interpretation of the thinking of the Leader of the House is all too likely to be true.
I was about to refer to some of the companies that are or may be wrongly included—London Graving Dock; J. B. Howie and Western Ship Repairers. Those that may or have been wrongly omitted are Westminster Dredging, Richards, Humber St. Andrews and Helyer Bros.
There are three qualifying conditions in the schedule. The first relates to the business of repairing and fitting of ships, the second to having an interest in possession or licence to occupy, and the third to the turnover. The Government have had the dubious distinction of making mistakes on each and every one of those conditions in respect of the wrongful inclusion or omission of companies. On each of them the Government have, to use the polite language of law, misdirected themselves. Time forbids a full analysis of the unconvincing contentions and uneasy equivocations deployed by Ministers in the House of Lords on 14th October and 16th November.
Suffice it to say that they included a misapprehension as to the meaning of the words
engaged in the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining".
Ministers seem to think that it means "solely or primarily engaged". It does not. If it did it would have been easy to draft the Bill to make that clear. This test is applied where it is meant to be applied in several statutes. I recommend the Government, as persistent and importunate borrowers, to examine, for an example, the Moneylenders Act.
Ministers then sought to introduce a criterion not expressed in the Bill at all—that certain activity was to be disregarded because it was said to be non-profit making. There is no warrant for the Government to graft on to the law things that are not there. The Government have a bee in their bonnet about profits and nonprofits, but I did not realise that it buzzed so frenetically and inconsequentially as as that.
In regard to condition (b) Ministers in the other House advance the startling proposition that a company engaged in substantial work of repair at a material date, did not have an
interest in possession or licence to occupy a dry dock or graving dock.
In an effort to get away from the clear meaning of condition (a) the Minister in the House of Lords dragged in the improbable analogy of the activities of a laundry. I would have thought that the Government had enough dirty linen to wash already. They even mentioned land reclamation, which awakened some echoes on these Benches.
The Bill is patently hybrid. It applies different treatment to private concerns which are similarly circumstanced. Those concerns should, therefore, have the rights and remedies which the law allows. The protective procedures should be followed according to precedent. Why should they not? The Government say that there should be no delay. This is a cardinal recipe for the subversion of the rule of law and the erosion of democratic procedures. It begs the question of merit. The Government's motion assumes that prompt action is desirable, whatever its nature and content. I see that the Minister nods his head.

Mr. Kaufman: I was nodding in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should take nothing for granted.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, whom we normally regard as a very courteous Member, should be convicted by his colleague of discourtesy in talking during the proceedings.
The Government motion assumes that prompt action is desirable whatever its nature and content, and that speedy progress is desirable whatever its direction. That is not so. If it were, the best example of prompt action would be that of the Gadarene swine. There is no doubt about their sense of urgency or their preconceived and dogmatic choice of direction.
The true reason, of course, for the Government's indefensible proposal is the knowledge of the weakness of their


own case. They do not trust the procedures which Parliament, in its wisdom, has evolved for safeguarding the citizen and protecting his rights.
We can test it by an analysis of the procedures and see the various stages at which, and the various grounds on which, a Government may be entitled to proceed with a Bill as a Public Bill, provided always that their case is a good one, and only then.
Let us take the position as we now have it, with the Order inscribed in the Votes and Proceedings of the House and a duty laid on the Examiners the discharge of which is a condition precedent to the Second Reading of the Bill. What is that duty? It is
To examine the Bill with respect to the applicability thereto of Standing Orders relating to Private Business.
Those Standing Orders are Standing Orders Nos. 4 to 68 inclusive in the Private Business Standing Orders. That we see in Standing Order No. 224.
If the Examiners report that none of those Standing Orders, compliance with which in a Private Bill would have to be proved before it is applicable, in fact applies, then it proceeds as an ordinary Public Bill. In that case, the wraps are off. The Bill can proceed to a Second Reading with a minimum of delay.
That is the first possibility that would present itself to a Government with the confidence that comes from a clear conscience, knowing that both sides, they and the Petitioners, would have a right of representation to the Examiners as provided by Standing Order No. 224.
But then, if the Examiners ruled otherwise—if they report non-compliance with the Standing Orders applicable to the Bill—their report is referred to the Standing Orders Committee. That, as you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is a very reputable and responsible body indeed, consisting of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means and eight Members nominated by the Committee of Selection. That we see in Standing Order No. 103.
In spite of non-compliance, that Committee can report to the House that the Standing Orders should be dispensed with and the Bill allowed to proceed, on specified terms and conditions if need be.
That is the second possibility that would present itself to a Government with the confidence that comes from a clear conscience.
If the Government had a good case and a good conscience, they would rely upon these procedures, under which both they and the Petitioners would have a right of audience and representation in what is in effect a quasi-judicial proceeding. That we find in Standing Order No. 107. But no, they refuse those opportunities. They seek to reject the prescribed procedures and to deny them to citizens concerned.
There can be only one explanation. Ministers fear those objective and constitutional procedures. They fear the result of applying them. They fear that the right to petition, once exercised, would reveal beyond the peradventure the unfairnesses and illogicality of their approach and the invalidity of the Government's case.
We are not here concerned only with the pros and cons of nationalisation, important as that is. I accept that Labour Members have a belief, profound and sincere, in the efficacy of nationalisation. I do not share it, but I respect it. On that I say only this. The fact that we operate a mixed economy in this country should remove the question from the realm of general dogma to that of particular pragmatic proof—but such proof cannot derive from a Bill that is as defective in its drafting as this one.
However, we are not concerned only with these economic matters, important as they undoubtedly are. We are concerned with the preservation of the practices and processes, the procedures and protection, bestowed by democratic institutions on a free society. These are fundamental things. The detail of these matters may be dry, but there is nothing arid about the observance of the rule of law. It is a vital part of our way of life, and once lost can rarely be made good.
The motion involves a substantial erosion of democratic rights and a violation of constitutional proprieties. I should regret the presentation and passage of such a motion in any assembly of free men. To contemplate it here in this House of Commons, which I have known


and loved for 10 Parliaments and three decades, makes me sad indeed.
I say this in conclusion to the Government. Their case is weak and their motives suspect. I give them this warning. Do not underestimate the percipience of the British people. The British people will neither readily forgive nor speedly forget a party and a Government who use their transient position of political power to take from the citizens his rights and to filch from the nation its liberties.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have heard the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) to the effect that there is a hybrid element in the Bill. On the last occasion that we discussed such a motion as is before the House now, in May, the House was asked to come to a conclusion on the motion having had Mr. Speaker's ruling that there was indeed a prima facie case of hybridity in the Bill at that time. I believe that it would facilitate the House in coming to a conclusion on the present motion of Mr. Speaker were to rule whether there is a prima facie hybridity in the Bill.
I am, therefore, making formal application to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that either you or Mr. Speaker should give to the House a ruling on the submissions put forward by my hon. Friend and by my right hon. and learned Friend on the point about hybridity before the House is asked to come to a conclusion, because this would clearly greatly affect the way in which many hon. Members wish to cast their votes.
The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President has expressed it as his firm opinion that the Bill is not hybrid, but if he were to be told that the Bill was hybrid, presumably he would, as a man of honour, vote immediately against his own motion. I therefore believe that it is right for me officially to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask Mr. Speaker to rule on the point raised by my hon. Friend before the House is asked to come to a conclusion later this evening.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have listened most carefully to the point of order

raised by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I have listened as hon. Members will have noticed, with keen interest to the speeches of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). From listening to the arguments, it seems remarkable to me that neither of them raised the point of order that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has raised, because I think that they have made a detailed study of the whole position. In any case, in my opinion—and this is how I rule—this is entirely a matter for decision by the House itself.

Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful of what you have said, but perhaps I may suggest that the matter is not one for decision by the House itself because Mr. Speaker has a right and proper duty to rule when a submission is put to him that a Bill is hybrid. The precedent for this is very real and true, in that Mr. Speaker ruled in just that way on a previous occasion on this very Bill. I do not believe that it is at all right to say that the House will resolve the question of hybridity by deciding on the motion, because the House may well come to a different conclusion if Mr. Speaker has ruled that prima facie it is a Hybrid Bill or if he has ruled that it is not.
Therefore, it seems wrong, I suggest, with the greatest respect, to say that this is a matter for the House to decide, when the House would be facilitated in that decision if Mr. Speaker were to give his ruling.

Mr. Foot: Perhaps I may say, in relation to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if there had been anything improper about our motion on the Order Paper, this would have been indicated by Mr. Speaker and the authorities of the House when the motion was put down. There was clearly nothing out of order about it. The House has the full right to decide the matter. Therefore, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), despite his great knowledge of these matters, is misinforming the House in suggesting that it is not the business of the House to decide the matter but the business of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Tebbit: rose—

Mr. David Crouch: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall get bogged down if I hear too many angles on a point of order. I shall deal with the point of order that has been raised.
The second point of order raised by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is based on a misunderstanding of what happened on the last occasion when Mr. Speaker gave his ruling. Mr. Speaker gave his ruling on hybridity after the Second Reading of the Bill. The situation is entirely different this afternoon. I see that the hon. Member for Tiverton is agreeing with me wholeheartedly. I think that if I were called upon to make a choice between the views of the hon. Member for Tiverton and those in the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I would always select the views of the hon. Member for Tiverton. There is a fundamental difference between the situation when Mr. Speaker gave his ruling and today. The occupant of the Chair has to give a ruling, and my ruling is that this is a matter for the House.

Mr. Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the Chair, the House and particularly the Lord President should be clear that the matter before the House is not that of deciding whether the Bill is hybrid. The House cannot take that decision. The matter before the House is to decide whether the hybrid Bill will be treated as though it were not a hybrid Bill, and those two matters are different.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for reinforcing the opinion that I gave.

Mr. Onslow: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have a lot of business to do and it will help if we can get on with it. I have given a ruling and I feel that I have to stick to it. However, I call the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) to raise his point of order.

Mr. Onslow: Perhaps it will save time if I put the point of order. It seems to

me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on reflection you will consider it unfortunate that the Chair should reflect upon the value of opinions held by individual Members, even on such a subject as matters of order. I put it to you that what you said about my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), was something which, on the whole, you would not care to put down as a ruling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry if the hon. Member does not enjoy a bit of humour occasionally.

Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with you about your relative selection as between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton but I should like to draw your attention to the point that although on the last occasion the Bill had had a Second Reading, on this occasion it has had only its First Reading. Whether it has had a Second Reading as opposed to its First Reading seems to be relevant. After all, hon. Members on this side of the House, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, have been chided continually for being so late to discover hybridity on the last occasion. As the Bill has been challenged as to its hybrid nature on the first day after its First Reading, my hon. Friend is trying to rectify the defect of which he was accused on the last occasion. Surely it is right and proper that, through you, I can ask Mr. Speaker to give a ruling whether the Bill, which has had its First Reading in this House, is prima facie a hybrid Bill. If it is, it will affect the way in which hon. Members vote.

Mr. John Gorst: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to emphasise a unique aspect of the situation, namely, that when we get to the Second Reading of the Bill we shall not be in a position to do anything about the motion which embraces the fact of hybridity. That is an added reason for suggesting that perhaps my hon. Friend has a point for your consideration.

Mr. Crouch: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that this is a serious moment and that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr.


Ridley) is important. I, like my hon. Friend, have sat through the whole debate and heard the deep and thoughtful speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) in which they advanced revealing and telling arguments to show that without question and without a shadow of doubt the Bill is a hybrid measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, in view of such revelations and the complete failure of the Leader of the House to deal with those matters and rebut them, it would save the House a great deal of time if the matter were referred to Mr. Speaker for a ruling. I strongly support the application.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I respectfully submit that a great deal of time would be saved if hon. Members would read the terms of the motion, because that provides complete guidance on what the debate is about. The debate is about whether the matter should be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. That is what we are discussing, and no ruling is required from Mr. Speaker.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) accused the Government of a whole series of misdemeanours, if not heinous crimes. There were so many that I ran out of paper trying to write them down. I noted cowardice, deception, corruption and dirty dealing occurring during his speech as accusations against the Government with regard to their behaviour on this Bill. Indeed, by the end of his speech the burglars of Watergate and the plumbers of the White House appeared as knights in shining armour by comparison.
Let us get back to the points at issue, particularly the question of Standing Order No. 38 to which the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) referred. We went over this argument several times during the last Session, but I hope that the House will forgive me for spending a couple of minutes on repeating the

point that Standing Order No. 38 refers only to raising the question of hybridity before the Second Reading.
In the last Session the Opposition were trying to raise the question of hybridity after the Second Reading, and from this side of the House we argued—and I argued this on a couple of occasions —that because Standing Order No. 38 referred only to the time before the Second Reading of a Bill, the clear implication was that if the matter of hybridity was not raised before the Second Reading, that issue was out of time. If that were not so, the Standing Orders would provide for the possibility of hybridity being raised and considered at subsequent stages of a Bill after the Second Reading. No one from the Opposition Benches could produce a single precedent of hybridity being raised successfully after the Second Reading of a Bill.
The situation today is that we have a Bill—effectively the same Bill as before —which has been through every stage of the procedures of the House at exhaustive and, indeed, in the case of those hon. Members who were on the Committee exhausting length. We are dealing with what the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East called law, or the rules, the Standing Orders, and the precedents about hybridity. The argument from the Opposition Benches can only be that we have gone back to square one and therefore yet another bite can be had at the hybridity cherry. But we are clearly not going back to square one, because if it is argued that that is what we are doing that is to ignore completely the hundreds of hours of debate on the Bill during the last Session of Parliament.
We know why we are in the position of having to bring the Bill forward in this Session. It is because of the action of the House of Lords.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has recalled the exchanges that we had in the summer. I well recall the interesting speech that he made and the interesting argument he adduced. I subsequently replied to that in The Times newspaper, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, on 4th June and dealt with the argument that it was possible to do this after Second Reading. The hon.


Gentleman will appreciate that we are now faced with an entirely different situation. The fallacy of his present argument is that, if it were so, it would not be necessary for the Bill to be read a Second time at all. Standing Order 38 says:
Where a public bill (not being a Bill to confirm a provisional order or certificate) is ordered to be read a second time on a future day".
That is precisely the set of circumstances that we have here today.

Mr. Clemitson: I can only say in reply —I do not wish to score cheap debating points—that a different interpretation of the hybridity situation is now being offered. The Opposition are now agreeing with the interpretation of the Standing Orders which we argued last Session. During the debates on procedure last session we continually argued that the only relevant Standing Order was Standing Order No. 38 and that it dealt only with the situation before the Second Reading. Technically we now have a situation where we are in the position of being before the Second Reading but we are also in the situation—this must surely be taken into account—of having a Bill before us because of the application of the Parliament Act. That is a very different situation from the one envisaged in Standing Order No. 38.
The hon. Member for Tiverton said that the Bill is peppered with hybridity. The question that inevitably arises in certain sceptical and suspicious minds on this side of the Chamber is: why were these issues not raised before? We heard about the Key Victoria—that peculiar looking vessel—in the last Session but now there is an argument about ship repairing. No doubt the list will be added to day by day. We await the news with interest.
Why were these issues not originally raised last session before the Second Reading?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When I raised the matter in debate I said that the external facts, not printed in the Bill, on which hybridity depended—the Key Victoria being on the slipway—were not known by hon. Members of this House before Second Reading. As soon as it was known I raised it with Mr. Speaker. Similarly, I had not been through the accounts of Westminster Dredging and I

did not know what ships they were or were not repairing on a certain date. Those facts could not be ascertained even by reading the Bill a million times. They were external facts which could be discovered only by people taking a good look and seeing what they found out.

Mr. Clemitson: Those facts were known perfectly well by the companies concerned. Are we to believe that those companies are poor little companies with no facilities and no legal and expert advisers? That is stretching the bounds of our credulity to impossible lengths.

Mr. Onslow: I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman was not present when all these matters were explained. It is a matter of fact that one of the companies clearly wanted to be nationalised, knew that it could not qualify under the Bill, and kept its mouth shut. That is not stretching the bounds of credulity. It is a fact.

Mr. Clemitson: Perhaps I might get on with my argument. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have lost it."] The argument is not lost. As Sydney Smith said, we are obviously arguing from different premises. We are on different sides of the House if not on different sides of the street. These facts were known by people—[An HON. MEMBER: "They were hushed up."] They were not hushed up. They were well known to many people who were intimately concerned with the Bill and its effects. It was up to them to raise these matters. They have the benefit of expert advice.
I would make a comparison that I have made before. Hon. Members of this House know about problems which affect ordinary people concerning the immensely complex social security legislation that we pass through this House. All of us have come across people who have been told "I am sorry, you cannot have sickness or unemployment benefit or even redundancy payment because you are out of time. You ought to have known that the onus of knowing what your rights are, and what you should do, is on you." That is said to people without the benefit of expert legal advice. But we are not talking about individuals in this case. We are talking about large powerful companies with plenty of expertise, legal and otherwise, at their disposal.
The original Key Victoria attempt to raise hybridity was an attempt by the Opposition to get a second bite at the cherry. But the Opposition knew very well that according to the rules and precedents they were out of time. Not content with trying to get a second bite at the cherry, they are now trying to get yet another bite. The Government are not attempting to rewrite the rules or break them. It has been the Opposition who continually throughout the passage of the Bill have attempted to bend the rules to their own ends. I ask with what objective.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clemitson: I am sorry, I have given way many times and I am literally on the last sentence of my speech.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Stop being a Heap, Uriah.

Mr. Clemitson: Is the Opposition's objective really to achieve justice and equity or is it to wreck the Bill?

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Knowingly or unknowingly the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) may have blown the gaff on the Government's extraordinary conduct on the probable hybridity of this Bill. It may have been that the Government—unless there has been gigantic incompetence—were made aware of the serious risks of hybridity in the Bill at the beginning. It may have been that the Government were banking on the interpretation of Standing Order 38 which the hon. Member for Luton, East has so persistently upheld. The Government may well have said to themselves that there was a great risk of hybridity, but that by the time the Opposition parties found out what was going on it would be too late for them and Standing Order 38 would not enable them to raise the matter. That is a possible interpretation of what, to me, is still a rather unpleasant mystery.
Only a vandal would deliberately disturb, or attempt to disturb, the reverence which earlier this afternoon the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) showed for the late noble marquess from Hatfield House. This was a partnership of authoritarians in their different

spheres. It quite often occurs in British politics and transcends other differences of political philosophy. These people say "It must be done my way", they lay down the law, and they expect people in the middle of the political spectrum to bow down and agree. All that I ask, without disturbing that touching reverence, is that the utterance of the late noble marquess should be seen in a historical context, as any sixth former writing an essay on the subject would be adjured to do.
When the noble marquess made this great deliverance on the subject of how far the other place should go, he was doing so at a time when, in terms of voting numbers, General Elections were substantially two-party affairs and where it was, therefore, in a two-party situation, inevitable that the party which won power would have if not more than 50 per cent. of the vote at any rate a figure approaching 50 per cent. Certainly the noble marquess cannot have visualised the situation in which an important measure would be introduced by a party which obtained only 28 per cent. of the votes of those on the register. This is a fundamental point of democracy.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that the noble marquess, who grew up in a tradition of rather more efficient draftsmanship and more careful legislation, ever envisaged that an important manifesto point would be embodied in such highly defective legislation. He would never have imagined that a Government in this country would come forward with a measure reeking of hybridity in the hope that this would not be discovered until it was too late to raise the matter. Therefore, it is inappropriate for us to be lectured today by the Leader of the House in terms of the late noble marquess, who was in his time a great statesman.
We are confronted with a more than unworthy attempt to abandon a traditional and extremely important arrangement whereby private interests, if they feel that they are being unevenly treated by a Bill, are entitled to be properly heard by a Committee of this House.
What I personally resent most is the suggestion that they can legitimately be deprived of this most important right either because they are not terribly important victims—that was the unworthy


assertion of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who said that they were not martyrs who were about to be carted off to prison, as if that were the test—or because it is rather late in the day that this has been discovered. If either of those assertions were ever widely accepted in this House it would be the beginning of the end of any kind of meaningful freedom.
The idea that on a complicated issue of this kind, when the House is breaking completely new ground in nationalising four manufacturing industries of great complexity, there must be a time limit, as though one were claiming sickness benefit, is a monstrous assertion. This is the way that liberties perish. Everyone begins by saying how important they are and how he would go to the stake to defend them, but then turns to a specific case and says that it is a most unworthy one and not the kind of case he had in mind at all. It is unfortunate that that sort of argument has been adduced today.
If we were tamely to give way to this bulldozing procedure for the second time this year we would be setting an unfortunate precedent which would undermine the faith which a large number of worthy private interests of all sorts have in the proper procedures of this House.
I turn now to the other part of the motion. Again, it would be disreputable of this House to pass a motion to carry a Bill virtually to its final stage without the opportunity for debate on it. Under the present system there are in this House parties which, despite having very strong voting support in great areas of the country, have no representatives of their parties in this House from those areas. Therefore, time is naturally required for facts to come to their notice, and it seems wrong that this Bill should be pushed through at this stage without an opportunity for any further such revelations to be reported to the House.
I know of a case in point. Only yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) happened to be able to pay a visit at last to an area where my party is grossly unrepresented in this House, namely, the North-East Coast. It was the first opportunity that any representative of my party had had to go up there personally to reconnoitre the shipbuilding situation. My hon.

Friend met the shop stewards of Austin & Pickersgill. He found to his surprise that, with one exception, they wished to have it on record that they were wholly opposed to the nationalisation of their shipyard. That is a fact which should at least be ventilated in this House in a proper debate on a large measure of this kind, and one which we shall be unable to develop properly if this motion is passed.
Of course, the will of the other place should not prevail against the wishes of the British people if these are efficiently ascertained and properly embodied in respectable legislation, but that is no reason why this House should submit tamely to a measure which is a great piece of deceit practised on the House on the basis of which no respectable—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In fairness to right hon. and hon. Members, and in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), as is his right, is not giving way at all, I think that I should point out that, immediately after we have disposed of the motion under discussion, we shall proceed to the very matters which the hon. Gentleman says will not be discussed.

Mr. Wainwright: If that amounts to some assurance that a view—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There will be a Second Reading debate on the Bill.

Mr. Wainwright: If that amounts to an assurance that it will be possible to have a second innings from the Liberal Bench—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not an assurance from the Chair. Hon. Members are making claims which they would see, if they would read their Order Paper, represent precisely what is to happen in the House.

Mr. Wainwright: If my fears are groundless that it will not be possible, once this motion is passed, for a further contribution from this Bench to be heard, my cup of happiness is full. But I doubt very much whether I can have an assurance about that.

Mr. Tebbit: The Lord President is selecting the speakers now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Colne


Valley wants an assurance that he is certain to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair during the Second Reading debate. That is a matter for the occupant of the Chair at the time.

Mr. Tebbit: The Lord President says that he will be. The Lord President is listing them now.

Mr. Wainwright: It is that very doubt that gave rise to my deep concern with which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must therefore, persist.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me make it absolutely clear. I think that it is only fair to the House to do so. The Lord President has no say whatever and makes no representations to the occupant of the Chair about who shall be called in the debate.

Mr. Wainwright: I understood that from the beginning, and that was the ground of my fear.
As I was saying, there is no doubt that the wishes of the British people must prevail if they are backed by a proper mandate and if they are efficiently embodied in a respectable piece of legislation, but since neither of those conditions is fulfilled in this case my right hon. and hon. Friends and I feel obliged to oppose the motion.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The speeches of the hon. Members for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) and Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) were absolutely disgraceful. They could be described as "housemaid's baby" speeches, in that they pleaded that the hybridity in the Bill was both very little and discovered very late—in the latter case, more than nine months after conception. For them to seek justification for the Government in those arguments is something of which they should be bitterly ashamed.

Mr. Clemitson: The whole thrust of the argument, certainly of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) was that the Government were bending or breaking the rules; that the law was being undermined. The thrust of my speech was

that the rules were being properly interpreted by the Government.

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I owe you an apology. Since I raised my point of order with you, I have discovered that the Bill has been virtually declared a hybrid, since the Order Paper contains the words:
Second Reading (To be reported upon by the Examiners.)
I had overlooked that, and I apologise.
So we are not now in any doubt about the true nature of the Bill. It is a hybrid Bill. All that the hon. Gentleman was arguing was "Yes, but it is only a little bit of hybridity and anyway we have discovered it at the wrong stage in the game." That is special pleading of a sort which, on mature consideration, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will bitterly regret.
It is this expediency about the Government's actions of which I want to talk. I notice that there are only two sad little names proposing the motion—"Mr. Michael Foot" and "Mr. Secretary Varley". The latter is one who would have us believe that the Bill will help Britain to rule the waves; the former is the one who waives the rules.
The Leader of the House gives the game away in the very first line of the motion, with the words
in view of the serious consequences of uncertainty".
Nobody uses those words unless he intends to do something that he knows he should not do. In effect, the Government are saying We know that the Bill is hybrid and we are crowding out the rights of the petitioner, but in view of something which we consider to be of overriding importance, we shall do it."
That is the justification of the Lord President's great friend, Mrs. Gandhi. Why does he not say "In view of the serious consequences of uncertainty, the House thinks that the whole Opposition should be put in prison"? It is just as logical and just as constitutional. The House could pass such a motion. The Lord President does not have many more steps to take to achieve that same high degree of honour which the Prime Minister of India has achieved—in view of the overriding importance of what he wants to do.
What does the right hon. Gentleman want to do? He wants to end the uncertainty for the industries concerned. During the long-drawn-out game of tennis between this House and another place over this Bill, I have observed the share values in the Financial Times when something dramatic has happened, making it either more or less likely that the industries would be nationalised. The curious thing is that when it seems likely that the Bill will fail, the shares of half the companies go up a good deal and the shares of the other half go down. Then, if the Government show determination, the reverse happens and the shares revert to the previous pattern.
This happens because the uncertainty, as the right hon. Gentleman calls it, works both ways. For the prosperous and successful companies, nationalisation means that their prosperity and success will be ended. Better uncertainty than that, surely. But for the unsuccessful and unprosperous companies whose shares rise only upon the certainty of nationalisation arising again, there is a very serious point which I wish to put to the House and which goes to the heart of all the arguments used by the Government in these debates.
That argument is that people will lose their jobs if the Bill does not go through quickly. The hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West, who, in his usual disgraceful manner, did not stay to hear his arguments answered, said the same thing. Will these men really be made redundant if the Bill does not go through, and will they not be made redundant if it does? That argument means that by passing the Bill and agreeing to the motion we should simply add to our economic problems by taking on to the payroll people who should not be on it. That is the most disgraceful argument that could be used by a Government struggling up to their necks with debt and trying to get the economy right—"Give us the Bill so that we can employ all these people whom we know we should not be employing".
The only good piece of news that I have heard this week came from the Chancellor yesterday. He said that the IMF had even suggested that it might try to sell the social contract to some other countries. If we could export the social contract, we might

indeed have an industrial revival. We might be able to beat the competition if the social contract, as exemplified in the Bill and the motion, were exported to our chief competitors. That might damage them grievously.
The Bill is hybrid. We have heard good and persuasive arguments from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about the number of companies that should be in but are not and the number that should be out but are not. The Lord President and the jack-in-the-box Minister of State who keeps trying to interrupt seem to believe that the list as it is is right, whereas grave doubt has been thrown on it by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
This is not a matter that we should decide; it is a matter that the Examiners should decide, and the Clerk has so ruled. It is wrong for the Government to seek to interpret their legislation even before it has gone through Parliament, to say which companies should be in the list and which should not. That is the reason for the hybridity rule.
If there is a dispute at a later stage, what will happen? Supposing that the Bill becomes law exactly as it is and some rapacious Secretary of State—perhaps the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will soon take over as Secretary of State for Industry— says "I want Richards or the Sugar Line or I do not want the London Graving Dock Company". He will make an order under the Bill, dragging them in and saying "They are mine. I want them in. I have nationalised them, because they meet the qualifying conditions."
If the companies concerned take legal action, what will be their legal rights? How could litigation arising from this situation be resolved? The law is not clear. The schedule says that they are not in, but according to the qualifying conditions, they are in. This matter cannot possibly be resolved even by the courts. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Luton, East to say that it does not matter, and that he is more interested in the welfare of the Clyde shipyards than in that of another place. These are large companies employing large numbers of people, with, large capital funds. People's jobs and financial holdings are at stake. That is


why the procedure laid down is right as it is and should be maintained.
In moving this motion, the Government are not employing some technical little device to stop my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton raising his usual brilliant procedural points; what they are doing is breaking the rules so as to disadvantage ordinary working people and ordinary working investors. The Leader of the House should be ashamed of the doctrine that he envinced and that he and the noble marquess have cooked up together—that the Lords are not to change anything that is in the manifesto.
Let me remind hon. Members that the manifesto contained proposals for making everybody better off and happier, for stopping the rise in prices, and reducing taxation. There was all the usual Socialist euphoria. What are the Lords to do about this, because the Government have not stuck to that? Are the Lords to throw out proposals because the Government have not kept to their manifesto in what are the more important respects? The right hon. Gentleman would not like it if they did. His doctrine is rubbish. What might apply in one year does not apply in the next.
The right hon. Gentleman sits there shaking his head violently from right to left when anything is said from the Tory Benches, and shaking it the other way when rubbish is spoken from his own Back Benches. He is beleaguered, unhappy and unsure of himself, knowing that the country has failed to support him, knowing that his supporters have drifted away, and knowing that he remains with a majority of only one vote in the House. He has no support anywhere else in the country. Yet he is grimly determined to force through this hated Bill by cheating, by waiving the rules in any way he can. Why can he not realise that in the end democracy must prevail?

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I used to say that I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I no longer do that. He has just made a disgraceful speech. The speeches from Opposition Members have been loaded with hypocrisy and cant. I include, I am sorry to say, the Liberal Benches. What has

happened to all the great radical tradition of which we used to hear? The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) does not display any, either. He has become more Tory than the Tories—apart, of course, from the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who represents the extreme Right Wing of the Tory Party. Whenever he makes a speech in this House he attempts cheap jibes and character assassination. He never succeeds, because he does not believe what he is saying. When he speaks about taking into public ownership this and that he forgets that he was on the Government side when Rolls-Royce was taken over within 24 hours. That is the true position. There was not a whisper of opposition then.
When we are examining the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, and when we are talking about people's employment, I wish that more members of the public could come here to listen to the Opposition. It does not matter to them. They do not care. All they are concerned about is hybridity and about the future of the great companies of which they speak—companies which are going bankrupt as they while away their time. They talk about democracy. They depend upon a Second Chamber which has not been elected by anyone. What kind of democracy is that?
I only wish that Opposition Members could have met the frustrated aircraft workers with whom I spoke last night. Those workers told me that their jobs were at stake. They said that they wished that the Government had asked 400 of them to become peers so that the Bill could go through the House of Lords. We want this Bill because the plans for the industry are being held up and no decisions are being taken. This is not good for the workers or for the economy. It may well be that due to the irresponsible Opposition here and in the other place—

Mr. Victor Goodhew: The hon. Gentleman is surely aware that the Government could have had the aircraft and shipbuilding industries nationalised a week ago if they had wanted to. It is only the obstinacy of the Government in insisting on including ship repairing that has prevented the aircraft industry from getting what the hon. Gentleman says it


wants—although I do not believe that the industry does want it.

Mr. Hoyle: That has nothing whatever to do with my argument. We have a mandate to nationalise ship repairing and we are sticking to that mandate. It is necessary to take that step if we are to have a viable shipbuilding and ship repairing industry. As long as the Bill is held up, decisions that are vital to the aerospace industry are delayed. The workers and the economy are suffering. Unless these decisions can be taken fairly quickly we may well miss the market for the new aircraft that ought to be being designed now. That is the indictment of the Tory Party.
In the shipbuilding industry it is even worse. If ever there was a memorial to the fact that private enterprise has failed the nation it is the shipbuilding industry. That is not because it has not been taken into public ownership; it is because, not just now but for decades, the industry has let down the nation by failing to invest money and modernise the yards. That has meant that we are unable to compete. We are starting, rather late in the day but better late than never, to revitalise the yards. We cannot begin to do that until we get this Bill.
In the meantime, in areas of high unemployment, many more people may lose their jobs. The responsibility for that must lie with the Opposition and those representatives of no one in the other Chamber. They are all indicted. It is time to end this synthetic nonsense, arguing about hybridity and the rest. It is time to wake up and realise that the jobs of people employed in these industries are at risk and that the nation and the economy are being sold short by irresponsible action which has been evident throughout the proceedings on this Bill.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I suppose that it was inevitable that in support of the Government's grotty little motion someone would make the sort of speech that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) has just made. I am bound to say that if he takes word for word the sort of rubbish that is spoken by an ad hoc delegation of five Communist shop stewards who have been drummed up at the last minute to produce a bit of evidence of concern—

Mr. Hoyle: rose—

Mr. Onslow: I have not even begun to provoke the hon. Gentleman. He had better save his ammunition for a little later. We have before us a motion that is justified on the grounds that there will be serious consequences for industry, including the aircraft industry, if the Bill does not go through. As a matter of fact, the aircraft industry is in for a pretty rotten time because of the way in which the Government have consistently mismanaged affairs since they came to office.
There is nothing in the Bill that will make any difference to the number of jobs that will be lost in that industry because of the action, or inaction, of the Government. It is a brutal and callous confidence trick to pretend, as the Government sometimes do when members of its Front Bench are sleep-walking through their scripts, that there would not be a single redundancy in the aircraft industry if we could get this Bill on the statute book tomorrow.
Everyone in the industry knows that there will be a large number of redundancies for reasons for which the Government are largely to blame. The Minister of State who has been bobbing up and down like a ping-pong ball on a jet of hot air was recently in the United States. He was going around trying to persuade people that he was the saviour of the civil aircraft industry in this country and was interested in anything that made commercial sense. He wanted to preserve jobs. He was determined to build the HS146.
At that point, he lost conviction and the interest of anyone who was listening to him. Circumstances have so changed, thanks to the way in which the Government have mismanaged the industry's affairs, that there is no possibility of making money out of the HS146. If the Minister of State is saying that he wants this project to go ahead as a form of outdoor relief for the aircraft industry, or in a vain attempt to save the seat of the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman), who has had such distressing publicity recently, he may as well save himself the trouble. Everyone who knows the industry knows that these objectives are illusory and cannot be achieved.
It is about time that we got away from the pretence that there is anything in this


Bill that will make any difference to the inevitable redundancies that will be experienced in the aircraft industry all over the country. The Secretary of State, who sleepwalked his way through a speech the other night, said that if the Bill does not go through the British Aircraft Corporation plant at Weybridge will have to close. I represent many workers at that plant. If any of them had believed the Secretary of State they would surely have come to me to say that this was a serious state of affairs and that we must support the Bill, but I have not had a single representation or expression of concern and I doubt whether anyone in the industry was so persuaded. The defence industry will keep the aircraft industry in this country alive with orders like the one, initiated by private enterprise and risk taking, for sales to Iran. Nothing will flow from the takeover of this industry by the bunch of incompetents on the Treasury Bench.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne will find that workers in his constituency will be done out of work because of the direction of Government contracts to nationalised industries. Lucas Aerospace is in danger of losing work that will be pre-empted by the Government and put into the nationalised company, Hawker Siddeley. He will have to explain that, and good luck to him.
This debate on hybridity has taken place after the event. The prima facie issue was settled on Monday, when the Clerks decided that the Bill should go to the Examiners. The Leader of the House may shake his head, but he should look at the Order Paper, because it appeared as item No. 5 on Monday. If he dissents from what I have said, perhaps he will explain how this happened. Was it because of inadvertence or incompetence, or was it the proper parliamentary process? Perhaps whoever replies for the Government at the end of the debate will touch on that. If the Leader of the House claims that because this House chooses to set its own rules at naught the House of Lords must to the same; that because the Clerks here find the Bill is prima facie hybrid, the House of Lords must not do the same; because we choose to upset the ruling of our Clerks, the Lords must do so also, he is on dangerous ground. He is preparing

the way for straightforward tyranny. He shakes his head. We get to know the right hon. Gentleman very well. Last night we saw him on good form, clowning, hamming it up, back to his good old Back Bench irresponsibility.

Mr. Hoyle: You are jealous.

Mr. Onslow: I am not jealous. To be jealous of such Jekyll and Hyde character, a man with such a split personality—to see myself in the shoes of such an incompetent Leader of the House —never ! He is a disgrace. If the Lords assert their right to make up their own minds and decide that this is a hybrid Bill—and their Clerks will advise them—they will be well and truly justified.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) had paid the House the courtesy of listening to earlier speeches, particularly those made by Conservatives, he might have addressed himself to the real issue.
I have not previously sought to intervene in debates on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill because I have no direct constituency interest, although I suspect that the majority of my constituents have, like myself, watched the erosion of our freedom over the past two years with as much concern as any hon. Gentleman who had the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committe on this Bill. The reason I sought to catch the eye of the Chair today is that I do not want to be party to a repetition of the particularly squalid incident that occurred in this House in May, during the last Session.
I do not complain that the Leader of the House has attempted to project this as another passage of arms between the two Houses. We know that he has a slight fixation about the Lords. But that is not the most important issue that we are debating tonight. I do not complain that the Bill is being reintroduced. The Government are entitled to take advantage of the Parliament Act 1948, in the same way that the House of Lords is entitled to exercise its powers to reject a Bill sent up from this House.
I do not propose to consider the Salisbury doctrine, although I am fascinated that it has now been elevated to the level


of a constitutional convention. Perhaps I have not given such close attention to the Labour Party manifesto produced for the last two Elections as I should, but I do not believe that the nationalisation of the ship repairing industry is to be found in it. I am open to correction. The hon. Gentleman opposite who is on his feet could, no doubt, in due course, quote the passage from this remarkable manifesto upon which the Government base their case for proceeding in such a pig-headed way with this Bill.
Another reason why I believe that the Salisbury doctrine, if we are obliged to regard it as a constitutional convention of great significance, should not be enforced on this occasion is that, as hon. Gentlemen who spoke for the Liberal Party pointed out, we have not had for a very long time a Government who had about them such an odour of decomposition and decay. Over the past few weeks the Government have shown that they palpably no longer have the support of their own party in the constituencies.
It is a matter for comment that almost before the last words in the Gracious Speech had passed into the rafters of this Chamber we should be asked once again to consider this Bill. I must confess that I almost felt a twinge of sorrow, practically compassion, for the Prime Minister when in March this year, having demonstrated the level of his own mediocrity so conclusively in 1967, he was called upon to extricate this country from the mess into which it had been led by a more adroit figure. Perhaps it would be offensive to a friedly Power if I compared the Prime Minister to President Ford. It might even be offensive to Mr. Nixon if I compared him to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). I do not wish to press the analogy too far, but it appears to me, as it does to many people outside this House, that the Prime Minister is endeavouring to extricate this country from a constitutional and economic Watergate.
The relevance of my remarks is that if the Prime Minister wishes to project himself as a great healer who will bridge the divide between various sections of the country, he was singularly ill-advised to re-introduce this Bill on the third or fourth day of the new parliamentary Session. He has lost a signal opportunity to create a different climate and to demonstrate by

deeds, rather than by words in the Mansion House, that he has some regard for the private sector of British industry. It is entirely specious to say, as the motion does, that in view of the serious consequences of uncertainty the House should consider seriously this rather trumpery Order. If there has been any uncertainty, it has been created by legislation for which the present Government are responsible. It ill becomes them to reintroduce this measure when the heat of the previous Session's conflict has barely had time to cool.
The real burden of complaint against these orders is that the Government are seeking, by a pretext which might possibly have had some shadowy justification during the last Session, to suspend the Orders of this House specifically designed for the protection of private interests in order to put through this singularly unattractive Bill.
We have been told that there would not have been time during the last Session to force through the Bill. I am prepared to accept that, although it was open to the Government, with the leave of House, to extend the Session. That pretext is not to them open in this Session. What would be lost if the Order of 29th November were left on the Order Paper? How much time would be lost if the Examiners considered and ruled authoritatively on the hybridity of the Bill? How much time would be last if private interests which will be affected were able to make representations to a Committee of this House? Would the Bill be put out of court and prevented from becoming law in this Session? I very much doubt it.
We are being asked to speed the passage of this Bill in order to satisfy the pig-headed obstinacy of the Government and, particularly, the Leader of the House. If any example were needed of the unarguable case for a Second Chamber, however constituted, it is in this Order.
It is implicit in the Order that there is at least a prima facie case for regarding the Bill as hybrid. I was persuaded by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) but the House does not have to be satisfied that the Bill


is hybrid. The constitutional question that we are debating is whether there is a prima facie case. As I understand the position, Mr. Speaker, you, through the Clerks, have ruled, by implication, that there is such a case by allowing the order of 29th November to stand on the Order Paper.
That is the point which the Leader of the House failed to deal with when he opened the debate. I can only hope that the Minister who is to reply will be able to deal with it effectively.
We know that the Leader of the House is apt to be carried away on flights of fancy and to see everything in constitutional terms as a conflict between this House and another place, but he would have done a greater service to this House if he had addressed himself to the real point at issue—whether we are right to suspend our Standing Orders before the Committee of Selection has even empanelled the Standing Orders Committee. It is quite wrong that we should be asked to do so.
Over the past three decades, we have given various territories of our former Empire their independence and have equipped them with a parliamentary system, complete with a Speaker, a Mace and a Serjeant at Arms. It is noticeable, in some instances, that although the forms have remained the substance has evaporated. I believe that we are getting to the edge of that position here. Over the past two years, we have seen the substance of our constitution and the conventions by which we operate flouted time and again and the responsibility lies entirely with the Government.
Some Opposition Members, perhaps speaking with more vehemence than thought, have sought to equate what has happened over this Bill with the passage of the European Communities Bill. The essential distinction is that every amendment on that Bill was debated. The fact that none was carried may have been due to the composition of this House. There was no Report stage, because there were no amendments. On no occasion that I can recall were the Standing Orders suspended to facilitate the passage of the Bill, important though it may be for our future and important as the country believed it

to be in the referendum—though I suspect that the Leader of the House may not have been in sympathy with that vote.
I look around to find the people to blame for this state of affairs. I do not attach much blame to the Secretary of State for Industry. He is no more than the office boy of the Cabinet. The Minister of State—the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman}—energetic and vociferous though he may be, is no more than the office boy's office boy.
Two right hon. Gentleman stand convicted of having contempt for our constitution. One is the Prime Minister, who has sought to project himself as the Baldwin of our times but has turned out to be a rather less nimble version of his predecessor—the right hon. Member for Huyton—and the other is the Leader of the House, who built a considerable parliamentary reputation on his concern for, interest in and knowledge of the ways and conventions of this House, but who has used his considerable forensic talents, ingenuity and eloquence to destroy those conventions over the past two years.
I shall vote against the motion, not only because these Orders are a particularly unattractive piece of business, but in order to register my lack of confidence in the Leader of the House as the person who, by convention, should represent everyone of us in the conduct of our business. He has proved himself not to be the Leader of the House, but merely a squalid party manager.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: I do not wish to comment on everything said by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). He made an extremely vulgar and contemptible speech, but it did him justice. That is the only level he can reach.
I was taken with the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarkable defence of another place and how he was so enamoured of it. I only hope that he will soon be elevated there so that we shall be rid of him and all his vulgarities and the status of this place will be raised.
We know that the sort of behaviour we have seen recently from Conservative landlord and hereditary peers boils over only when there are Labour and Liberal


Governments. It is only then that we see such incredible behaviour from the commissars of another place who would do justice to almost any totalitarian reéime. None of them is elected. When Tory Governments are in power, they revert to their rôle as docile puppies.
Some of us have criticised the behaviour of another place and have said that the way they handled this legislation was a disgrace to our democratic procedures. A question that everybody wants answered is whether the statement by the Conservative peer, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that the House of Commons rather than the House of Lords should be abolished, is supported by the Opposition in this House. Let the record show that some hon. Members opposite approve of the maintenance of the House of Lords and the abolition of this House. They will never be able to raise a single objection to any totalitarian régime in future. Nevertheless, that is not an official answer from the Conservative Front Bench. I believe that the House of Commons and the people outside want to know whether it is the policy of the Conservative Party to see the House of Commons abolished and the House of Lords maintained. We are entitled to an answer, and I hope we shall get it tonight.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: Without the ridiculous observations of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) I would not be feeling so angry now.
I did prepare myself for some comments on the procedure motion, and I have been sitting here all the afternoon, like the Leader of the House. I will say this for the right hon. Gentleman: he never lets the House down. He does sit here and listen to the debates and arguments advanced when Bills and motions are before the House. He has not failed as Leader of the House in this way, but he has failed in allowing the Cabinet to put such a motion on the Order Paper today and in asking us to brook no delay on this Bill.
To advance the argument that the Lords have exceeded their constitutional duties, coming from him, is hardly honest and is not in keeping with his understanding of the constitutional position of the other place. Yet he dared to

come here and sneer at the Lords because they gave the Commons, the Press and the public the opportunity to rethink the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish; it is never rubbish for this House to have second thoughts. It is never rubbish for this House to take a little extra time, or to consider the views of hon. Members from either side or from any extremity.
In this motion today the Leader of the House tells us, in one very telling sentence, that there should be no delay. What right has he to tell Parliament that there should be no delay?

Mr. Tom Litterick: It is urgent.

Mr. Crouch: Of course it is urgent to those who want the Bill, but it is even more urgent to have freedom—

Mr. Litterick: Whose freedom. The House of Lords?

Mr. Crouch: The freedom of our people to have their views and their rights observed by Parliament. The hon. Gentleman has not been in his seat this afternoon and he has not heard the arguments advanced from this side, particularly the remarkable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).

Mr. Litterick: He said nothing new.

Mr. Crouch: It was said that this Bill was a hybrid Bill. This was reinforced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) who gave us the benefit of his very experienced judgment in legal matters. As I said in an intervention on a point of order, there was, in my opinion, and that of many hon. Members, no shadow of doubt that this was a hybrid Bill. I owe the Chair an apology for the intervention I made in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). When he raised the point, I supported him in seeking your advice, Mr. Speaker, to rule that this was a hybrid Bill. I would have been helpless if the Leader of the House had stood up and said that the Government's Order of the Day made it clear that this was a hybrid Bill. The first Order of the Day—that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding


Industries Bill should be reported upon by the Examiners—is a clear statement, and it would have been helpful if the Leader of the House had been so forthcoming when he opened the debate. It did not need the skilful arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend to establish that this was a hybrid Bill, because it was already stated to be so. [Interruption.]
However, it no longer concerns me that this is a hybrid Bill. It does concern me that this procedure motion, hustling the Bill through the House, has been put down, thus keeping the measure away from the examination that it should receive as a hybrid Bill. Certain procedures and institutions of the House have been dispensed with. It is a remarkable day in the House of Commons when we are told to rush a Bill through, and dispense with all the recognised institutions of the House. I protest most strongly that we should be asked at this stage to do this just because the Government are determined to get the Bill through. [Interruption.]
I have not taken part in earlier discussions on this Bill, and I was not on the Committee. However, I was disgusted by many aspects of it, and by the way it was rushed through and guillotined. I was disgusted more than ever today by being asked to dispense with the proper procedures of the House. When the Bill goes back to the Lords it goes back as a hybrid Bill and, automatically, it will be referred to the Examiners by the Lords—that is how I understand it.
There has been much talk by Labour Members that the Lords have exceeded their duties in this matter. We have had references to the Marquess of Salisbury. Labour Members might reflect on the the letter in The Times last week from Lord Shawcross, who happened to be the Attorney-General at the time of the passage of the last Parliament Bill, which gave the House of Lords the constitutional right to delay measures. The other place was not given the power to wipe out legislation altogether, and it did not wipe out this measure. The Lords allowed it to proceed and in their wisdom—

Mr. Litterick: In their what?

Mr. Crouch: In their wisdom—it is a phrase of which the hon. Member may not have heard—

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a running battery of seated comments, ruderies and questions from hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government Benches. This makes it almost impossible for my hon. Friend to make his speech and for us to listen to it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite right. Continuous interruptions from a sedentary position are unparliamentary, and spoil our debates.

Mr. Crouch: It is kind of you, Mr. Speaker, to give me a quieter reception, but the comments were not really worrying me. I regarded the undercurrent as an acceptance of my argument by hon. Members opposite, even though they did not like it.
The House of Lords took out one element from the Bill because they thought it was wrong. Why should they not have second thoughts? They were given this right by the Attlee Administration, after the war. They have used that authority and they have not gone any further than that. There has been a lot of wild and stupid talk about abolishing the other place. I have been critical of the Lords in the past, in the context of the parliamentary democratic situation, but I am not critical of them in this instance. They have done no more than call upon the Commons to reintroduce this measure and get it debated. I am arguing tonight on a procedural motion, which says that we will dispense with certain institutions and measures, and I am strongly against that.
I call upon the Leader of the House to lead the House again. When he used to speak from below the Gangway he was strong in his defence of the rights of hon. Members and the public. His was a clarion voice when he spoke from below the Gangway, but not today. He is nodding while Parliament is trying to ensure that the freedom of the people is preserved. He is nodding, although he is the one man on the Front Bench who should be seeking to preserve Parliament and its institutions.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Norman Lamont: One thing that seems to have been lost sight of is that we are in fact discussing a motion in two parts, first to get rid of the hybridity procedure and, secondly, to dispense with the Committee stage when the Bill again goes through the House. It is unfortunate that the two parts should be taken together, and some Labour Members may also feel that there are few precedents for what is being done. On the hybridity procedure there is only the precedent of the last Session, and on the suspension of the Committee stage, other than in the last Session, there is only the precedent of 1913 which the Leader of the House quoted, and I hope to show that that was a different situation. Never before have we had two such motions in one composite motion, and never before have we moved towards invoking the Parliament Act on a prima facie hybrid Bill.
Before dealing with the two parts of the motion I shall deal first with two general matters. Labour Members seem to go red in the face about what the House of Lords is doing but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said, the House of Lords is only using the constitutional powers that it has been given by a Labour Government. In a previous incarnation the Leader of the House prevented the House of Lords from being reformed It ill lies in his mouth to complain about the way in which the House of Lords exercises its powers. He was one of the people who opposed a previous attempt to reform the Lords. When he destroyed that attempt what did he expect? Did he seriously expect the House of Lords not to use the powers it has?
Another general point was raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) and others. He and the Government say that it is necessary to get the Bill through quickly because of uncertainty about jobs and the state of the industries. If that is so, the Government are behaving in an extraordinary manner. They brought in the Bill in a leisurely way.
They introduced it in 1974 and let it drop. Six months elapsed between presentation and Second Reading. The time

the Bill has taken in the House of Lords has been very short compared with the delay for which the Government are responsible. If the Government think that there is a great problem of uncertainty for the industries, it is also extraordinary that they should have dealt with the questions of hybridity and ship repairing in such a way. Those two issues are inter-related and all the Government needed to do was to reach an accommodation over ship repairing.
In the House of Lords, Lord Carrington said that the Government could nationalise the aircraft industry and the shipbuilding industry and in the next Session introduce another Bill to nationalise ship repairing. But he asked the Government to take back ship repairing and to consider it for a period. All that was required to get the Bill was for the Government to exercise a little care and a little of the conciliation that has been so lacking on the Government Benches. The Government have put politics before the welfare of the industries concerned. It does not lie in their mouths to accuse other people of endangering jobs and industries.
The suggestion for truncating the Committee stage is unfortunate. A suggestion stage is not as good as a Committee stage because the choice of suggestions lies with the Government, and that is to the disadvantage because of the Opposition. It is also a disadvantage because of the limited time available. I appreciate that the Committee stage was lengthy, but this is an unprecedented Bill which nationalises more than 40 companies, transfers 140,000 jobs from the private sector to the public sector and nationalises, some would say, not two but three, four or five industries. The Report stage was truncated. Only three days were allowed to us to consider 208 Government amendments alone. There are many matters to be raised if the House is to operate properly. That is why I much regret that the Government are to truncate the Committee stage.
I suspect that the real reason for the Government wishing to truncate the Committee stage is that they are frightened that the House will change its mind. They are frightened that the composition of the House may change and that they may lose a by-election. They are


frightened that there might be an outbreak of democracy and that Members will take a different view of the Bill.
We had very close votes on the Bill. On one occasion we had a tied vote in controversial circumstances. After that, we continued with narrow majorities. There is one great difference between what the right hon. Gentleman is doing now and what was done in 1913, which the right hon. Gentleman uses as a precedent. When Mr. Asquith in 1913 got rid of the Committee stage of three Bills in one go, the majorities on the Second Reading of those Bills were 98, 95 and 103. At the same time the average vote for each opposed Liberal candidate in the previous election was 49·3 per cent. of the poll. How very different is that from today, when we have a minority Government insisting on pushing through legislation supported only by a minority of their own supporters.
It is astonishing that the Leader of the House hardly referred to the controversy about hybridity. He made no attempt to rebut the case that might have been put. He made scarcely any mention of hybridity. This occasion is different in one significant respect from the previous occasion when we discussed hybridity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) said, the last time we discussed the hybridity procedure the Government said that they would alter the Bill to take account of the parts that were alleged to be hybrid. Now they say that they will go ahead regardless of whether the Bill is hybrid. Does any hon. Member believe that that is sensible? Is it not at least possible that if we push through a hybrid Bill without observing the proper procedures the will of Parliament may be challenged in the courts? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman wants? Is that sensible?
This debate is not just about technicalities. It is a pity that the term "hybridity" is used. It might be to do with almost anything under the sun. It would be much better to talk about a procedure for Bills that involve "unfair discrimination". This is not a technical matter. It is about the rights of individuals and equality of treatment for people in the same category or classes. Above all, it is about minorities. That is why I regret that the Members of Plaid Cymru

are not here and will not vote in the Lobbies. Representing a minority party, they above all others should be concerned about this issue.
Procedures have been built up in the House to protect the rights of citizens and minorities. The Select Committee procedure replaced the procedure by which people petitioned at the Bar of the House, safe in the knowledge that they would get a fair hearing and would see justice done. Some people say that the House of Commons can do anything provided it has a majority of one, but is it right that the House by a small majority should cast aside the procedures for securing justice and equality of treatment for minorities? If that is what the Government are proposing, it is an end to impartial law and another step on the road to arbitrary government.
The facts are that the Bill has been judged by the Public Bill Office to be prima facie a hybrid Bill. It should not be open to the Leader of the House to question that. It should not be open to him to prevent the Bill from going through the normal procedure to a Select Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) quoted the ruling given by Speaker Hylton-Foster when he said that, in his opinion, if a Bill were prima facie hybrid it should go to a Select Committee. It should not be open to us to question it. That is where I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to want to be judge, jury and executioner. The trouble is that when he is being judge and jury he acts those parts in the spirit of executioner.
The Leader of the House of course does not know on which grounds the Public Bill Office reached its decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has indicated some of the grounds and some of the submissions that have been made. He has indicated a number of cases that give good grounds for believing that the Bill may be hybrid. But it is not necessary to go quite as far as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and to say that it is clearly hybrid.
The point is that it should not be for the House to judge. It should not be up to us. It is not a proper decision to be


taken on a whipped vote. It is a decision that should not be taken following a debate that has been attended by only half the House. The procedure laid down should be followed, one that has been laid down over a long period—namely, the Select Committee system.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who is no longer in his place, asked "Who are these individuals? What are these interests that are arbitrarily affected?" My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, to whose research and industry I pay tribute and to whom the House is greatly in debt, demonstrated quite clearly that the criteria for inclusion in the Bill are very arbitrary. The line that determines whether one is in or out of the Bill is extremely fine and comes down rather suddenly. Some people whose firearms are included in the Bill have a sense of grievance because firms that they do not regard as their competitors are not included. That is the unfairness.
Although the Government may not like it, they must face the fact that the Bill is imperfectly drafted. They cannot escape from that. Let them face the consequences.
The hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) asked why the hybridity had not been discovered earlier. Surely people are entitled to protect their interests. They are entitled, even at a late stage, to point out an unfairness. One reason for it taking a considerable time to find these examples is that we have had to base our case on companies outside the Bill which, by any logic, should be inside the Bill.
We are opposed to nationalisation and we are not saying that any more companies should be included. I do not want to get them in the Bill. All we are saying is that at present the Bill is imperfect. It is unfair, arbitrary and not in accordance with the traditions of the House.
The Leader of the House has a reputation as a defender of Parliament—[Hon. Members: "Had".]—and as a most eloquent speaker. He still has a reputation as a most eloquent speaker. However, some people are beginning to think that the view that should be taken of him is rather like that which Mr. Austen Chamberlain took of Asquith in the 1913 debate. That is the debate which the

right hon. Gentleman has cited as a precedent. Mr. Austen Chamberlain described Mr. Asquith as a very eloquent speaker and went on to say:
the more mellifluous the language in which he commends it to the House the greater is the outrage which he proposes to perpetrate upon our … liberties."—[Official Report, 23rd June 1913; Vol. 54, c. 824.]
The Public Bill Office has ruled that this is prima facie a hybrid Bill. In our view it is clearly the duty of the Leader of the House, if he is the Leader of the House and not merely a party manager, to let the normal procedures of the House go through. The desire of the Government to get this Bill should not overrule the requirement that it should be fairly drafted and equitable.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is challenging the ruling of the Public Bill Office. I do not think he is entitled to do so. Perhaps he is saying that he does not care whether the Bill is hybrid and that he will get it through. However, he is trampling underfoot not only the rights of a free Parliament but the duties of a free Parliament.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I do not question in any, way—

Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman, obviously by omission, did not seek the permission of the House to speak again. I believe that to be necessary in this debate.

Mr. Speaker: No. The right hon. Gentleman does not need permission on this occasion, it being a substantive motion.

Mr. Foot: No one who has listened to this debate could deny the importance of the issues that have been raised. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) has said, the motion deals with two matters at the same time. I shall seek to deal with the two important issues.
First, there is the general question of hybridity and its effect upon the Bill. Secondly, there is the question how the House should properly deal with Bills that come from another place when the Parliament Act procedures are to be applied. Although it is the case that those are two separate subjects. and I


understand that they are two separate arguments, they overlap to some extent. Are we to acknowledge the authority or the power of the House of Lords to overthrow legislation that passes through this place? That might be done by various Members. That is a factor that has to be taken into account as well. However, I agree that the two subjects, to some extent, must be dealt with separately.
Many fierce charges have been made throughout the debate. Much strong language has been used in the accusations made against the Government and against myself particularly. It has been said that we are riding roughshod over the rights of Parliament. I shall answer the charges as they have been made although I must say that the language used in making them has gone very far to destroy the arguments themselves.
As everyone acknowledges, and as I acknowledged previously, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is entitled to claim the credit for the original appeal that he made successfully to you, Mr. Speaker, on the ground of hybridity, and all the more so because the Bill had gone through such a lengthy procedure. I shall deal with that again in a moment. However, the hon. Member for Tiverton today and on other occasions, but especially today, has gone far beyond anything which can be drawn from his first deduction. He has made accusations of concealment on the part of Government Departments and Ministers, and presumably on the part of civil servants. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and I are fully prepared to take all the responsibilities that are ours, but if anything like the charges of the hon. Gentleman are justified they will be charges against the whole of the Departments concerned. I repudiate those charges in every respect.
There has been no attempt by the Department of Industry to conceal the facts from the persons to whom they should have been presented, including the authorities in this place and the authorities in another place. I repudiate in entirety the whole of the charges that the hon. Gentleman makes in that respect. But he goes further and tries to build charges of corruption. That is to use language that brings the rest of his arguments into discredit. It is like the 13th

stroke of the clock that casts suspicion on all the previous 12 strokes.
We know that the hon. Gentleman had a great triumph once—and we shall never hear the end of it—but that does not mean that he has been right on any of the subsequent occasions. In my opinion he was not right in the presentation of his case today. At least he can claim that by the use of his exaggerated language today he is in very good—or rather, very bad—company. He is in the company of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). The right hon. and learned Gentleman should never have used such language as he used if he is ever to appear in the courts again. He said that it was an open-and-shut case of hybridity. That is the language he used. Whatever else it is, it has never been that. Maybe it has been a marginal case. Many of us thought when the hon. Member for Tiverton raised the issue originally that there was not a case of hybridity. But I understand that others took a different view. It certainly was not an open and shut case, whatever else it was.
The hon. Member for Tiverton said that the Bill is now peppered with hybridity.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who usually speaks with great fairness, talked about idle Bill reeking of hybridity, or perhaps it was some other hon. Gentleman. That is the language of Surbiton.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: rose—

Mr. Foot: If this Bill reeked of hybridity, was peppered with hybridity, or was an open and shut case, why did not their Lordships, who are not noted for their fairness and eagerness to assist this Government, take the step of sending it to the Examiners, as they could have done?
I must say that their Lordships listened to the argument maybe a little more carefully than some hon. Members in this House. Their Lordships listened to the argument which came from the Department of Industry and was presented by Ministers in the other place. It may be that they were convinced by that


argument, as many here would and should be, because it was formidable. I do not think that every noble Lord was convinced, but in the end their Lordships were convinced in the sense that they did not send the Bill to the Examiners in another place.
I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman shortly. I hope that whatever else he does when he gets to his feet, he will withdraw the absurdity that he tried to palm off on this House of this being an open and shut case of hybridity.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: It has taken the right hon. Gentleman a good deal longer to get to his semi-colon and give way to me than it took for me to get to mine and to give way to him. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about this matter, which is perhaps not unsual, though regrettable. This is a hybrid Bill. The fact that the Examiners have got it under their jurisdiction makes it a hybrid Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it does. They are now charged with the duty of considering whether the Standing Orders applicable to it—Standing Orders 4 to 68 in the Private Business Standing Orders—have been complied with. If not, then the procedure is as for a Public Bill. But it is a hybrid Bill, although the Standing Orders can be dispensed with or may have been complied with.

Mr. Foot: I am sure that the House will have noted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ran away from the precise question. I asked why, if this were an open and shut case, the House of Lords did not resort to the action that it could have taken. I suggest that he should not use language about open, and shut cases, nor should hon. Members say that the Bill is peppered with or reeks of hybridity when that was not the view taken by their Lordships who looked at this matter a few weeks ago. Such language as that applied to this Bill brings into disrepute the arguments put forward by their Lordships. It also brings into disrepute those right hon. and learned Members in this House who try to palm off their legal knowledge upon us and think that we have to accept it. It never was an open and shut case. It is not an open and shut case now.

I do not believe that anybody, looking fairly at the details which have been presented, would say that it was an open and shut case.

Mr. Peter Rees: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer one question?

Mr. Molloy: Mine was not answered.

Mr. Peter Rees: Does he accept as a prima facie case that this is a hybrid Bill?

Mr. Foot: I shall come to that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall come to it immediately. I shall not try to dodge the question put to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman as his right hon. and learned Friend dodged the question which I put to him. The motion on the Order Paper about the reference is a statement that it is a prima facie case of hybridity. But that is not the same as saying that it is a case of hybridity. The case is not proved. It is certainly not the same as saying that it reeks of hybridity or that it is peppered with hybridity. What the Opposition have left out of account altogether is what happened to the Bill when it went to another place, which further substantiates the case that I am presenting to the House.
The Bill went to another place. It was not proved to be hybrid there. It was not referred to the Examiners. A number of new points of alleged hybridity were raised, this time relating to ship repairing. These related to such unlikely propositions as the BP Tanker Company, with a turnover of £400 million moving oil in every quarter of the globe, being part of the British ship repairing industry.
Three times detailed points were made in another place, each of which was answered in great detail. I think that certain noble Lords professed not to be satisfied. But the Bill was not referred to the Examiners in another place, and no move was made to do so.
This is the same Bill generally and in particular as regards the ship repair definition as was introduced into this House a year ago and as was introduced into another place in the summer. It is the same Bill as fell—[An HON. MEMBER: "The same hybrid Bill."] If it


was the same hybrid Bill, why did not their Lordships take some steps to deal with it? They did not do anything of the kind. It is the same Bill as fell at the end of the Session because the other place disagreed with this House. That is why we propose to treat the Bill in this Session as it was treated in the last Session.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, first, that the issue of hybridity was raised in some detail in the House of Lords by the noble Lord, Lord Colville and, secondly, one reason that the House of Lords did not raise with the Clerks the issue of hybridity was that they had deleted the ship repairing part of the Bill which was also the part involving hybridity?

Mr. Foot: That is not so. The hon. Gentleman is misinformed on that subject, just as he was misinformed when he said that we would not be able to raise matters in later discussions on the Bill in the procedure that we have laid down.
This is the same Bill as fell at the end of the Session because the other place disagreed with this House. That is why we propose to treat the Bill in this Session as it was treated in the last Session. The first part of the motion has that effect. It ensures that doubts raised now on minute points of alleged potential hybridity shall not obstruct the progress of the Bill, impeded as it has been in another place.
Nobody has suggested that the Bill is a hybrid in the sense that it reeks of hybridity. The Bill is said to involve an element of hybridity because, on the facts and on an interpretation of the wording of Schedule 2, certain companies which repair ships may possibly satisfy the conditions in the schedule and yet are not included in the list of companies to be nationalised whereas others in that list may not satisfy those conditions. The Government are satisfied that the Bill is not in fact hybrid in that the list of ship repairing companies is correctly described in the schedule and no other companies come within the description.
Furthermore, our view is that the points which have so far been made do not involve any such doubts as would justify

a reference to the Examiners, although —here I repeat what I have already underlined—we appreciate that a different view has been taken by the House authorities.
I understand that those who wanted to destroy the Bill in the past want to seize on every possible opportunity for doing so. In any event, the Government are clear that the doubts are not such as would justify the delays to the Bill which, of necessity, would be caused by the reference. I could analyse many of the individual cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Tiverton to prove that case.
I say to the House that it is not a case of a Bill which has just appeared before the House. This is a Bill which has been before the House for many months. It is a Bill which has had a longer examination—and this refutes what was said by the hon. Member for Canterbury—than any Bill presented to us since 1945.
A further absurdity is the way in which the argument has been presented to the country to suggest, as the newspapers have suggested, that we have curtailed and truncated discussions and that the issues have not been properly discussed. It is absurd to suggest that people have not been able to defend their individual interests. Of course they have. There have been more opportunities in this than in any Bill presented to the House since the war. If hon. Members opposite did not raise some of the questions for more than a year, it is their fault and not ours.
When the question of hybridity was raised last time by the hon. Member for Tiverton we were faced with a unique situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was hushed up."] There was no hushing up. It was all above board. Everyone knew what was happening. It was not hushed up. We came to the House of Commons. We said that the Bill had been through a lengthy and detailed examination and no question of hybridity had been raised in the early stages, and that to disrupt the whole Bill for that reason would make a mockery of the procedures of the House and that the whole procedures of the House would have to be put aside.

Mr. Crouch: Will the Leader of the House help us at this late stage? He


talks about sweeping aside certain institutions and procedures of the House regarding the examination of a Bill which is considered to be hybrid. Is he honestly saying, as Leader of the House, that he is advising hon. Members to vote to dispense with those procedures because the Table has recognised that the Bill is hybrid and that the rights of individuals to be heard under the right procedures of the House are now to be swept aside?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Canterbury has not got the facts correct. The authorities of the House have not pronounced that the Bill is hybrid. They have said that, in their view, it should be regarded as a prima facie case of hybridity. They apply the rule as they have it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] This Bill is not appearing before the House for the first time, although some hon. Members seem to speak as if that were so. On the previous occasion, when we said that we would dispense with the procedure for referring the Bill to the Committee, we said that the case for doing that was that it was a unique situation. For the first time in our history the matter was being raised after the whole Committee stage had been completed.
Far from that being an attack on or an invasion into the rights of the House, what we propose and what we proposed last time amounted to a protection of the rights of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I know that hon. Members opposite do not care much about the protection of the House, particularly when their property interests are involved. They do not care about protection at all. I know that they do not care about the protection of the rights of majorities in this House. But I say that when a Bill, for the first time in our history, has been through such long procedures as this Bill—

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be heard.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Speaker: The Lord President.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Foot: The Opposition are suggesting that the House of Commons should have accepted the proposition that hybridity should be used to disrupt a measure. That is their defence. For the same reason I say that if the hybridity arrangements are permitted to destroy the passage of a Bill which has been discussed at such length, the effectiveness of the House of Commons will indeed be undermined.
I know how sensitive the Opposition are on my next point, and I therefore address my remarks particularly to the Liberal Party and to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) who referred to how we should deal under the Parliament Act with matters that come from the other place. The hon. Member for Colne Valley said that it was improper to truncate debate as is proposed in the motion. He criticised me for citing the case of Lord Salisbury. I cited that case because it was apposite. He explained how the House of Lords should deal with measures that had been put to the country in party manifestoes. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Gladstone?"] I will not go back to Gladstone, but let us look at Asquith. They were great defenders of parliamentary liberty, but the Conservatives did not defend liberties then, nor are they doing so today. They are defending their property interests. I hope that the Liberal Party will save themselves from the humiliation of siding with those who shouted down Mr. Asquith in the old days. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It happened. The Opposition know so little about their own parliamentary history that they do not know that the Tories used to behave as badly then as they do today.
When the procedures were established under the Parliament Act by the Liberal Party to deal with intervention by the House of Lords, certain steps were taken. We are dealing with a precedent in this case. The Opposition are now complaining that I am using precedent. They are never satisfied. There were precedents on how to deal with Bills which were obstructed by the other place. They are Liberal precedents. Lord Asquith said:
It is quite obvious, and it is admitted already, that it would be a waste of Parliamentary time to propose Amendments which ex


hypothesi cannot be adopted without destroying the identity of the Bill, and that clearly was contemplated when the Parliament Act was passed."—[Official Report, 23rd June, 1913; Vol. 54, c. 818.]
Therefore, what our motion does in this respect is to protect exactly the situation that Mr. Asquith defined. It is to protect the identity of the Bill, because if we were to agree that the House should go through procedures which would disrupt the identity of the Bill, which would be sent back to the other place in a very different form, the Parliament Act could not be invoked. That is exactly what the Liberals did in having to deal with the House of Lords before the last war, and that is exactly what we must do now if the House of Commons is not to be obstructed by another place.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept at least part of what I was trying to say earlier? That is that this precedent largely falls

because in the case of Asquith and the Marquess of Salisbury they were talking about virtually a two-party system. Asquith in particular was in possession of a majority of over 80 in the House and had the support of over 50 per cent. of the electors at the previous election.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed and he misunderstands the situation. The Liberals in that Parliament were dependent on other parties, and we shall see whether we are, too. The question for the Liberal Party, which Liberal Members should face, is whether it will try to sustain the supremacy of this elected House of Commons. That is what we on the Government side of the House are doing, and in doing so we shall be sustaining the liberties of the British people as well.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 268.

Division No. 5]
AYES
[7.51 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Corbett, Robin
Freeson, Reginald


Allaun, Frank
Cowans, Harry
Garrett, john (Norwich S)


Anderson, Donald
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Archer, Peter
Cronin, John
George, Bruce


Armstrong, Ernest
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Gilbert, Dr John


Ashley, Jack
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Ginsburg, David


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Bob
Golding, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Gould, Bryan


Atkinson, Norman
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Gourley, Harry


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davidson, Arthur
Graham, Ted


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bates, Alf
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bean R. E.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Pt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Deakins, Eric
Harper, Joseph


Bidwell Sydney
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bishop, E. S.
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dempsey, James
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boardman, H.
Doig, Peter
Hatton, Frank


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dormand, J. D.
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dunn, James A.
Heffer, Eric S.


Bradley, Tom
Dunnett, Jack
Hooley, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Horam, John


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Eadie, Alex
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Edge, Geoff
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Huckfield, Les


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Buchanan, Richard
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
English, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Ennals, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton amp; P)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Campbell, Ian
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, John (Newton)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Cant, R. B.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Carmichael, Neil
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Janner, Greville


Carter, Ray
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cartwright, John
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Flannery, Martin
John, Brynmor


Clemitson, Ivor
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cohen, Stanley
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ford, Ben
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Concannon, J. D.
Forrester, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Conlan, Bernard
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Judd, Frank


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kaufman, Gerald




Kelley, Richard
Moyle, Roland
Spearing, Nigel


Kerr, Russell
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stallard, A. W.


Kinnock, Neil
Newens, stanley
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Lambie, David
Noble, Mike
Stoddart, David,


Lamborn, Harry
Oakes, Gordon
stott, Roger


Lamond, James
Ogden, Eric
Strang, Gavin


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
O'Halloran, Michael
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.


Leadbitter, Ted
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lee, John
Ovenden, John
Swain, Thomas


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Padley, Walter
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Lipton, Marcus
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Litterick, Tom
Park, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Loyden, Eddie
Parker, John
Tierney, Sydney


Luard, Evan
Parry, Robert
Tinn, James


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Pendry, Tom
Tomlinson, John


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Perry, Ernest
Tomney, Frank


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Torney, Tom


McCartney, Hugh
Prescott, John
Tuck, Raphael


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McElhone, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Radice, Giles
Walden, Brian (B'hem, L'dyw'd)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


MacKenzie, Gregor
Richardson, Miss Jo
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Ward, Michael


Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Watkins, David


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Weetch, Ken


Madden, Max
Robinson, Geoffrey
Weitzman, David


Magee, Bryan
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wellbeloved, James


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mahon, Simon
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
White, James (Pollok)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rooker, J. W.
Whitlock, William


Marks, Kenneth
Rose, Paul B.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Marquand, David
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ryman, John
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson(Alexander (Hamilton)


Meacher, Michael
Selby, Harry
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Mikardo, Ian
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Woodali, Alec


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Woof, Robert


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Molloy, William
Sillars, James



Moonman, Eric
Silverman, James



Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Mr. Peter Snape.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Burden, F. A.
Fairgrieve, Russell


Alison, Michael
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fell, Anthony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Carlisle, Mark
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Arnold, Tom
Carson, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Awdry, Daniel
Churchill, W. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Kenneth
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Robert
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Beith, A. J.
Clegg, Walter
Fox, Marcus


Bell, Ronald
Cockcroft, John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Freud, Clement


Benyon, W.
Cope, John
Fry, Peter


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cormack, Patrick
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Biffen, John
Corrie, John
Gardiner, George (Relgate)


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, A. P.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Blaker, Peter
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Body, Richard
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Crowder, F. P.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Peter
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemotown)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Goodhart, Philip


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Goodhew, Victor


Bradford, Rev Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Goodlad, Alastair


Braine Sir Bernard
Drayson, Burnaby
Gorst, John


Britten, Leon
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Dunlop, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Brotherton, Michael
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gray, Hamish


Bryan, Sir Paul
Elliott, Sir William
Griffiths, Eldon


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Emery, Peter
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Budgen, Nick
Eyre, Reginald
Grist, Ian


Bulmer, Esmond
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Grylls, Michael




Hall, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mates, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mather, Carol
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maude, Angus
Royle, Sir Anthony


Hannam, John
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Sainsbury, Tim


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mawby, Ray
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Havers, Sir Michael
Mayhew, Patrick
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hayhoe, Barney
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Colin


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shersby, Michael


Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Peter
Silvester, Fred


Hicks, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman
Sims, Roger


Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hodgson, Robin
Moate, Roger
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Holland, Philip
Molyneaux, James
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hooson, Emlyn
Monro, Hector
Speed, Keith


Hordern, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Spence, John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Howell, David (Guildford)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Morgan, Geraint
Sproat, Iain


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stainton, Keith


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hurd, Douglas
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stanley, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mudd, David
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Neave, Airey
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


James, David
Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Neubert, Michael
Stokes, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Newton, Tony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Normanton, Tom
Tapsell, Peter


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Nott, John
Toylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Jopling, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Tebbit, Norman


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Richard (Workington)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Kilfedder, James
Paisley, Rev Ian
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Kimball, Marcus
Pardoe, John
Townsend, Cyril D.


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Parkinson, Cecil
 Trotter, Neville


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pattie, Geoffrey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kirk, Sir Peter
Penhaligon, David
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Percival, Ian
Viggers, Peter


Knight, Mrs Jill
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Knox, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Wakeham, John


Lamont, Norman
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Lawrence, Ivan
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wall, Patrick


Lawson, Nigel
Raison, Timothy
Walters, Dennis


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rathbone, Tim
Weatherill, Bernard


Lloyd, Ian
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wells, John


Loveridge, John
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


McCrindle, Robert
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Winterton, Nicholas


McCusker, H.
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
 Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Macfarlane, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


MacGregor, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Younger, Hon George


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ridsdale, Julian



McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rifkind, Malcolm



McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Madel, David
Roberts, Wyn (conway)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
 Mr. Michael Roberts.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That—
(1) in view of the serious consequences of uncertainty for the industries concerned and for those employed in them, this House affirms the opinion expressed in its resolution of 27th May 1976 in relation to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill introduced in the last Session of this Parliament that there should be no delay in the passage of legislation to provide for the vesting in bodies corporate established by authority of Parliament of the securities of certain companies engaged in manufacturing aircraft and guided weapons and of certain companies engaged in shipbuilding and allied industries, and accordingly the Order of 29th November that the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the

Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill of this Session is discharged and in relation to the proceedings on that Bill any Standing Orders relating to private business and consideration of the application of any such Standing Orders are dispensed with;
(2) in the event of the Bill being read a second time, it shall stand committed to a Committee of the whole House, and when the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, notwithstanding that Notice of an Instruction may have been given, and in the Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall forthwith put the Question that he do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House without putting any other Question, and the Question so put shall be decided forthwith.

Orders of the Day — AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the decision that the House has just taken the Bill no longer stands referred to the Examiners, and the rubric on the Order Paper—"To be reported upon by the Examiners"—should be disregarded.

8.7 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It will be just a year tomorrow since I moved the Second Reading of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill in the last Session. I think that on that occasion I addressed the House for nearly an hour, but I do not intend to do that today, because over the past 12 months, in spite of what has been said this afternoon, no Bill has been debated with quite as much interest as this one, and certainly in the last Session of Parliament no Bill was considered at such length as was this measure.
One thing is sure: during the last Session we made clear our determination to fulfil the pledges contained in both the Labour Party's 1974 General Election manifestos to bring the aircraft and shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering industries into public ownership. There are sound reasons of industrial logic for including both shipbuilding and ship repairing, but in insisting now on the scope of the proposals that were endorsed by this House I do not propose to develop the arguments as fully as they have been developed over the past 12 months.
We are proceeding because we do not think that this Government, or, for that matter, any other Government, can afford to allow the other place to emasculate their policies—policies that have been endorsed at two General Elections and on many occasions in this House. It is inconceivable that a Conservative Government would even face such a challenge, and they would certainly not allow it to succeed. We shall demonstrate that a Labour Government can carry

through their policies despite the fact that we have had placed in our way obstacles that never block the path of a Government formed by the Conservative Party.
We believe that public ownership will bring great benefits to these industries. During the last Session the general arguments were often put, and we stated our belief that it will help to improve the performance of both industries and to ensure that they make the maximum contribution to the economy.
I do not expect to win converts at this stage among Conservative Members, who oppose public ownership in principle. I know that there are many outside the House who do not share my belief that the industry should be brought into public ownership, but I believe even they concede that it is in the interests of both these industries that the issues should be resolved as quickly as possible.
This continued delay will have many damaging results. First, it will add to the problems that face the two Organising Committees that I established in the early part of this year. They have made an excellent start in the most difficult circumstances and I would like to take the opportunity afforded by this debate to acknowledge their magnificent work. In both industries there has been a genuine willingness to co-operate with the Committees, which have interpreted their rôle not only as preparing for nationalisation but as providing a focus for action within the two industries to develop policy initiatives.
The Shipbuilding Organising Committee has played an important part in laying the foundations for the Corporation that will bear the responsibility for seeing the merchant shipbuilding industry through the present world crisis. The Aerospace Committee has taken the lead in negotiations with European and American companies about British participation in the next generation of civil aircraft. I have made it clear to the members of both Organising Committees that I want their work to continue, and subject to this Bill getting a Second Reading tonight, I understand that they are prepared to continue. It is my earnest hope that in future months they will continue the valuable work in which they are engaged and which will be so important to both industries.
Under the Organising Committee for British Aerospace, the two aircraft companies are now beginning to work together, so that for the first time the British aircraft industry can now speak with a single authoritative voice. In present circumstances this is essential if the industry is to play its full part in the world aircraft scene.
The scale of projects, planned and possible, is now beyond the resources of any single aircraft company and even beyond the resources of a single country. Therefore, the future of the industry in this country will depend on its participation in collaborative projects. Jobs will depend on the British industry being able to play its proper part in whatever projects emerge from the present formative discussions. The aircraft industry cannot delay vital decisions which will determine its future size and capacity in this country.
Until about six months ago there was relatively little firm activity on future projects, but the outlook for aircraft manufacturing companies, Governments and airlines is now quite different. They are beginning to enter into serious negotiations, which will lead to the formation of groupings to produce the new generation of civil aircraft.
Through the Organising Committee, the British aircraft industry has been involved in useful and promising discussions with a number of potential partners. These are now moving beyond the exploratory stage, but they will make their alliances with others if the future organisation of our industry remains in doubt. If doubts are not removed, I do not think that the collaborative projects on which the Organising Committee is having discussions can come to fruition. That is a major reason for removing doubt as quickly as possible.
Indeed, as the negotiations move towards the formative stage, these uncertainties are placing and will place our industry at a disadvantage. If groupings are being formed, the attractions of a partner whose future structure is unclear will be diminished. If opportunities are not to be missed—opportunities on which will depend jobs and the maintenance and development of a technological capacity and capability—this delay must be ended.
If the delay is serious—I hope that there will not be much further delay—the consequences will be felt even more severely by the merchant shipbuilders and the marine engine builders—not to mention the many companies who supply marine equipment for merchant ships. As we all know, merchant shipbuilding faces a world-wide crisis, the most serious for many years. There is over-capacity, and cut-throat competition for the few orders going.
The difficulties facing shipyards in other European countries have been much in the news lately. This country cannot escape those facts.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman says. He has put his finger on the button in saying that there are many more yards available to build ships than there are ships to be built and that we must compete with the rest of the world. If we cannot meet the requirements of price, delivery, and so on, which are necessary to get foreign orders, do the Government themselves intend to place orders for merchant ships? If so, what will they do when they have got them built, and what money will they use to build them?

Mr. Varley: The Organising Committee is having discussions with the Government to work out the industry's future structure and to identify possibilities. I agree that many difficulties will face our industry in the face of world over-capacity and cut-throat competition. That has been confirmed in three major articles in the last few days.
The Economist last week, under the headline "Delay Equals Disaster", outlined the problems and concluded that they called for putting British Shipbuilders in control right away. The Sunday Times illustrated the problems by pointing out how much the industry has lost ground in productivity and in net output from each employee and for each pound in wages or salaries.
On Monday, the Financial Times graphically described the present problems of the Scottish merchant yards.

Mr. Neville Trotter: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Economist also said in that article that nationalisation was not the best solution for either of these industries?

Mr. Varley: I know that the Economist took that view some months ago, but in the article that I saw on Friday it did not say so in quite such clear and graphic terms.

Mr. Trotter: If I may not quote from the article, I would only say that it is at the start of the second paragraph. I believe that the wording is to the effect that nationalisation is not the best policy for the aircraft and shipbuilding industries.

Mr. Varley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will disagree with what I said just now—that that article said that British Shipbuilders should be in control right away. As a Member from Tyneside who knows how serious the situation is, he will surely agree that the doubt should be ended as quickly as possible. I hope that, as someone who knows something about the industry, he will have some influence with his hon. Friends and with those in another place when the Bill is passed to them.
There is no doubt that the picture is gloomy for parts of these industries, but there has been one hopeful sign. The advent of British Shipbuilders gave promise of a new approach to the problems and the hope of a positive national policy for the industry. As I have said, the Organising Committee has made a good start and has brought a new spirit of enterprise to the industry's needs. But for the intransigence of the Opposition in the other place, British Shipbuilders would by now be established as a statutory corporation, tackling the urgent problems facing the industry.
It has often been argued by Conservative Members that the Government can deal with these problems under existing legislation. That has usually meant—or we have taken it to mean—that we could put taxpayers' resources into these industries by using the good old 1972 Industry Act. That has been used, I think, by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and his colleague who used to support him on industry matters —the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—but I do not suppose that we shall hear that argument from the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen).
The argument that we cannot have a national strategy is unacceptable to us. Assistance has to be given on a regional

basis in accordance with a national strategy. We have to take into account the social grounds, and we have to make sure that the resources that will have to be devoted to shipbuilding can be used effectively in accordance with the corporate plan that will be designed by British shipbuilders. That is why we are convinced that public ownership is the right solution for this industry. Ship repairing also faces a difficult period. Even the successful yards find orders hard to get.

Mr. Burden: The Secretary of State has been not answered the question that I put to him. If the orders are not coming on the open market to keep these yards open, what will the Government do in order to justify taking over the shipyards? How are they going to see that the people in the yards are kept busy?

Mr. Varley: Orders are the key. I do not deny that. We have to make every effort to persuade British shipowners to place orders in British yards. When we look at the figures over the last few years we find that British shipowners have placed many orders overseas, for all kinds of reasons. I do not think that it would be proper to go into those reasons now. British shipowners have to realise that it is in their interests to have a British shipbuilding capability. If our shipbuilding industry were to go it is unthinkable that Britain, as a great maritime nation, would become permanent prisoners of foreign shipbuilders. That is the philosophy that we have to accept.
I have had informal as well as formal discussions with the General Council of British Shipping, and I think it understands the difficulties. I hope that in the months ahead it will place orders in British yards.

Mr. John Evans: Does my right hon. Friend accept that none of us who worked in the industry could ever understand why British shipowners were able to go to Japan, Korea and other countries and have their ships built there, with substantial Government grants, while British shipbuilding workers were unemployed? Some of us will certainly expect this rule to be changed in the future.

Mr. Varley: These are factors that will have to be taken into consideration. Certainly, a few years ago there was a


boom in British shipbuilding and it could be argued that at that time British shipowners had to place orders abroad to fill the time scale. But the key in the future depends on persuading British shipowners to place many more orders in British yards than they have done in the past.
The ship repairing industry has also faced difficulties. That industry has a long history of decline. In the closing stages of the last Session I made clear several times the industrial reasons for this decline under private ownership. Public ownership offers the only hope of a workable industrial strategy to halt and reverse this decline.
Once again the Opposition offer no clear alternative policy—except possibly providing some 1972 Industry Act money in the way it was used in Govan and elsewhere. Anyone who refuses to accept the industrial truth about the shiprepairing industry as I have described it—and as confirmed in the PA Consultatnts' report—must have been seriously misled by the false and extravagant publicity recently disseminated about this industry.
It is a matter of regret to me that so many noble Lords in another place allowed themselves to be taken in so completely by this false picture. I regret even more that such an error of understanding led them in the end to take the serious step of obstructing one of this Government's major industrial policies, which must be urgently implemented if employment in vital industries is not to suffer drastic reduction. I urge them, when they receive this Bill, as I am sure they will within the course of the next few days, to put this right at the earliest opportunity.
We are determined that our proposals shall reach the statute book in the form endorsed by this House. We believe this to be in the interests of the industries that we intend to take into public ownership and in the interests of the whole country.
In this situation it is right to point out that the only effect of the action taken in another place is delay. The damaging effects of delay, which I have outlined, are acknowledged on all sides. In moving that this Bill be read a Second time it is my firm hope that its opponents will not, by continuing their resistance, continue to

harm the industries whose interests they claim to have at heart.
What we are now debating is not some interesting parliamentary procedural tactic. We have just had a heated debate about that, and the House endorsed the Government's action by the largest majority that we have had during the whole of the time that this Bill has been before the House of Commons.
The consequences for many areas of the country will be serious if the Bill is delayed. They will be serious for Merseyside, Tyneside, Wearside and Clydeside. I am sure that members of the SNP will take that into account when we vote for the Second Reading tonight.
After the Bill is given its Second Reading, and passes to the House of Lords in the next few days, I hope that it will reach the statute book as quickly as possible.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: The Secretary of State explained that he would make a reasonably brief speech not because of the insignificance of the topic but because it was one which had been widely canvassed in the House over previous months. I do not dissent from that but I must confess that I rise with all the modesty of a maiden speaker on this subject.
At the outset I would therefore like to read into the record that the register of Members' interests indicates that I am an economic adviser to a company which acts as brokers to Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited and that I also have a modest shareholding in that shipbuilding company. It may seem slightly pedantic to make that point but I think it ought to be on the record.
I join the Secretary of State in a common analysis of some of the background problems of the related industries. Certainly we can agree on the likely continuing low demand for shipbuilding and on the strong competitive force which is evident from some of the new centres of output both in Asia and Latin America. What is more, until recently there has been a lack of worldwide demand for civil aircraft.
I note some incipient optimism in the remarks of the Secretary of State on that account. My guess is that the military


market is likely to remain a good deal more buoyant than the civil market for some time to come. We can also agree that none of these fundamental difficulties can be willed away by the proposals in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright)—I have to speak as the priest on behalf of the absent congregation in this instance—said of nationalisation:
This is a measure of industrial archaeology."—[Official Report, 2nd December 1975; Vol. 901, c. 1475.]
During the Second Reading debate in the previous Session, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said in respect of nationalisation:
It brings change more slowly and not more quickly but just as inevitably at a cost which is totally disproportionate to the illusory benefits which are claimed on its behalf."—[Official Report, 2nd December 1975; Vol. 901, c. 1462.]
The major criticism that I still make of this legislation is that the Bill gives no indication of what nationalisation will mean for two significant sectors of the economy which undoubtedly will have to undergo very considerable structural change over the next few years.
I do not believe that this is a matter where the judgments of the Organising Committees should be, as it were, paramount and withheld from the House. The Government's strategy should have been evident both on Second Reading and in Committee. Here, I echo the very fair inquiry of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). It was argued constantly by many supporters of the Bill that it merited support on account of its job protection potential. That is in no sense an unfair description of the arguments which were advanced both on Second Reading and in Committee. But we are bound to ask where are the expected areas of concentration under British Shipbuilders, how will the industry be re-deployed, and, above all, what investment will be made available to give substance to whatever is to be the prospective strategy.
The levels of compensation will have some impact upon the totality of the Government's public sector borrowing requirement and financial policies. In the light of the remarks of the Secretary of State today, inevitably there will be grow

ing interest about the extent to which British shipping is to become a captive or a quasi-captive market for the new industry.
To none of these questions was an answer given throughout all the stages of the legislation in the preceding Session of Parliament, and Scottish National Party Members are perfectly right to argue that, in the absence of commitments of this kind, the House is entitled to question the strategy, the philosophy and the policy embodied in this Bill even though it comes to us 12 months after it was previously given its Second Reading.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said that he had some connection with the shipbuilding industry, and I accept that. But is he not aware that the only way in which we can have job protection in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries is to bring them under public ownership? Taking the ship repairing industry on Merseyside as an example, in 1947 it employed about 20,000 workers. They have been reduced to about 3,000 now. That has happened without public ownership, and if the industry is left in the hands of private enterprise. I think that the hon. Gentleman must agree with me that the levels of employment will get even worse.
As for shipbuilding, which is again an industry with which I have had a lot to do—indeed, I worked in it for many years —one of the problems is that managements did not keep up with the times. They never modernised. One could go to Japanese, American and other shipyards throughout the world and discover modernisation programmes which our managements—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The intervention by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) is extending over quite a period.

Mr. Heffer: I apologise for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However I think that I have made the point adequately that there is a very important case for this Bill being passed at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: It was a good intervention.

Mr. Biffen: As the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) said, it was a good intervention. In fact, it was a hybrid intervention, because it was really a speech purporting to be an intervention.
It enables me to move to my next point, which is whether, having our debate today on 1st December 1976—rather than 2nd December 1975—are there any additional factors which enable us to bring just some fresh nuance to the arguments which are tolerably familiar. Quite obviously, it is the view of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Hafer) that a publicly-owned industry would be commercially more viable, more aggressive, able to sustain higher levels of employment and able to stand ready comparison with such assets had they remained in private ownership.
The new factor, which I draw to the attention of the House, has been the report of the National Economic Development Office on the experience of our nationalised industries in major positions of economic influence in the totality of the economy. The National Economic Development Office report clearly indicates that nationalised industries under successive generations of politicians—no one is engaging in a policy of comparative neglect as between the pot and the kettle—have been subject to constant and well-documented political interference which has impeded correct pricing policy, distorted preferred investment policies and led to the destruction of managerial morale.
The destruction of managerial morale goes far wider than that. It has an impact on the morale of those who work on shop floor levels in those industries. I am not such an elitist that I think that managerial morale only could command the attention of this House. The latest evidence of that was the departure of Mr. Farrimond from his rôle as British Railways industrial relations expert. His parting shot was a testimony to some of the shortcomings of nationalisation as an instrument for promoting the effective economic use of our resources. Whatever may be the strictures of the hon. Member for Walton, I do not regard the misdemeanours of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries as being so demonstrably evident.
The aircraft industry has a commendable pattern of success. The four companies contained in the schedule for nationalisation have an enviable export record. In 1975 exports totalled £800 million out of a turnover of just double that figure. Even in the last few days we have seen the welcome evidence of the successful commercial skills of the BAC 1–11 series 475 jet airliner. It was observed by Michael Donne in the Financial Times:
The possibility of a Japanese order for the BAC 1–11 series 475 jet airliner now appears to be strengthening.
I could quote many other instances of the profound success of our aerospace industry in the markets of the world.
I turn now to the shipbuilding industry. There is a considerably varied pattern of commercial experience, which is hardly surprising in the face of the development of the tremendous competitive strength of the shipbuilding industries outside the United Kingdom and Western Europe. We do ourselves—and certainly those in the shipbuilding industry—no service if we lead them to believe that these profound structural competitive forces can somehow or other be set at naught. That is not so.
Many of the companies contained in the schedule dealing with the shipbuilding industry have patterns of commercial success. I should have thought that that was particularly true of naval shipbuilders. Obviously, one expects both industries to alter their structure in the next two or three years. But the history of both these industries since the end of the war has been a history of ownership concentrating on restructuring in the face of market conditions without recourse to nationalisation.
One is driven increasingly to relate back to the previous Second Reading debate as the Secretary of State did in our earlier debate on the procedural motion. It is difficult to believe that we are in the same House of Commons. The emotions that were evident just a short while ago—and I do not suppose any of my words could raise the temperature much above—

Mr. David Lambie: What about those who are making a fortune on television?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) says that a fortune is being made on television.

Mr. Lambie: The gentlemen we are talking about are making a fortune on television.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Central Ayshire wishes to make an intervention, perhaps he will try to catch my eye.

Mr. Lambie: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Biffen: I think that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire owes us an explanation. I do not think that I am the only person in this House who would like to know how one could make a fortune on television. Could he indicate the hon. Members who are doing so, and how it is achieved? I shall willingly give way to him. I had hoped that at least that pearl could be extracted from this debate.
There is no doubt that nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries is part of a compact to keep together the restless, and possibly disintegrating, factions that comprise the Labour Party. The orthodox member of the Tribune Group in the Department of Industry may laugh, but I notice that the Minister, who is a less orthodox member of the group, is less amused by that commonsense and self-evident observation.
This measure has no friends outside the Labour Party. The hon. Member for Walton is making sedentary and bellicose noises. All right, the measure has the support of the Scottish Labour Party, and during the last parliamentary Session it had the support of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire). That support was much welcomed by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. I sent a note to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which I dare say he has received, indicating that I would mention his vote, because it has interested me. I envy him. When I came into the House of Commons it was seven months, or perhaps slightly more, before I made my maiden speech. That stood as a record until the arrival of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and he has deprived me of my record because he has

yet to make his maiden speech. Obviously he wishes to say something now.

Mr. Frank Maguire: Is the hon. Gentleman jealous?

Mr. Biffen: Of course I am jealous because I have lost my record for having observed the longest silence between entry to this House and maiden speech. I had trusted that my record would eventually find its way into the "Guiness Book of Records". Naturally, I am jealous because I have lost my record, but my jealousy has been matched only by my fascination to hear the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone making his maiden speech on this Bill, because it was upon this Bill that his vote proved vital. I think that considerable care was taken to persuade him on this matter. He has certainly not been the most active participant in our affairs.

Mr. Maguire: Would the hon. Gentleman repeat that statement? I did not hear it properly.

Mr. Biffen: I said that I did not think that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone had been the most active participant in our affairs. I had understood that the hon. Gentleman did not have perhaps the same devotion to the constitutional arrangements of Westminster and all they entail as the rest of us.

Mr. Frank Maguire: The hon. Gentleman has made some statements which I think that he cannot back up. My commitment to the Bill is well established in Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to make the same statements outside this Chamber, I shall deal with him.

Mr. Biffen: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman says that his commitment to the Bill is whole-hearted and well known. If I have said anything which was offensive to him, I withdraw it at once. If the hon. Gentleman's attachment to the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom stands foursquare with that of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), I have clearly misunderstood the situation. I had understood that there were differences between the hon. Members.

Mr. Maguire: Is the hon. Gentleman withdrawing his original statement? It is nice to see that you appreciate the error of your ways.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that so far any error of my ways has not been detected.

Mr. Heffer: I have always had the highest respect for the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). We have had many serious theoretical arguments in the House on economic policy. But if the hon. Gentleman continues along the road on which he has been travelling for the past five minutes, my respect will be seriously diminished.

Mr. Biffen: I am happy to put that respect at risk on this issue. I say that without meaning offence to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone I believe that any person who comes here has a right to be judged on his views and opinions over the whole range of issues within the ambit of Parliament. I am fascinated that the hon. Gentleman should have conferred his support on the Bill and I do not question the integrity with which he does to.
Perhaps we can part as friends if I say that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will show the same devoted interest to other items of domestic legislation covering the full range of matters in the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Maguire: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to cut out the red herrings, please?

Mr. John Evans: The time taken by an hon. Member before making his maiden speech is a matter of interest mainly to parliamentarians. The length of time which the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and his party are keeping the shipbuilding, ship repairing and aircraft industries in a state of suspense is a matter for the country, and that is what we are debating.
Before the hon. Gentleman started his haranguing of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire), he claimed that the only support for the Bill was within the ranks of the Labour Party. Will he recognise that shipbuilding and ship repair workers on Tyneside, Wearside, Merseyside, Teesside and Clydeside want the Bill quickly? That

is where we have the support for the Bill.

Mr. Biffen: Well, if there were such substantial support for this legislation as the hon. Member indicates, there would have been much more powerful evidence of it in recent electoral tests to which the Labour Party has been subjected.
I believe that this measure is short of friends outside the Labour Party. I believe that this measure is a high price to pay in divisive legislation when the nation needs a strategy of conciliation.
The Government have shown a perverse determination to proceed with this Bill. I say that on three counts. First, I believe that the Bill is slipshod in its drafting. The very fact that the Public Bill Office pronounced a prima facie case for considering it as hybrid is evidence of that fact. It is particularly sad that we should have had recourse to the measures of the particular procedural device to deal with that. The burden of the case of the Leader of the House was that the issue of hybridity had been raised at an inconvenient time. It is not the purpose of Members of this House to conduct operations for the convenience of the Executive. That was never the view of the Leader of the House when he sat below the Gangway.
Secondly, I believe that ship repairing could have been excluded. In the debates between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the whole issue of ship repairing, which after all encapsulated the problems of hybridity, became as it were the topmost peak of the commanding heights of the economy. I cannot understand how it came to be elevated into a kind of political Everest, which had to be scaled at any cost. I believe that the Minister of State is principally the arch-mountaineer in this case, and he carries with him a number of uncertain and bewildered Sherpas bearing the ideological baggage of this measure.
Thirdly, there is an ultimate motive in this Bill. It is that of a despairing Cabinet seeking an external diversion on the issue of peers versus people. I believe that the Government are mistaken if they think that that isssue can be raised on this legislation. Not even the formidable oratory of the Leader of the House can inflame the long-dead embers of that controversy. I urge my hon.


Friends to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill tonight.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Never before have I had the opportunity of following a maiden speaker. However, I do not intend to extend to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) the courtesies normally extended to maiden speeches because his speech tonight was the worst I have heard him make in the House. I had a lot of respect for the hon. Member and the speeches he made as a Back Bench Member. Perhaps he feels uncomfortable on the Front Bench, but it was really a bad speech. He never made out a case against the Bill, and at least five minutes were wasted over arguments leading to the intervention of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire), which had nothing whatsoever to do with the Bill.

Mr. Burden: Yes they did.

Mr. Mitchell: I believe very strongly that if we do not have public ownership in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries we shall not have these industries at all in a few years. It is essential for the survival of the industries that public ownership takes place. However, I do not believe that the mere act of public ownership will solve the many problems that face these industries. The problems will still be there, but at the moment the very worst thing is happening. The action of the other place in turning out the Bill was an utter disgrace. The very worst thing we could have is another long period of uncertainty. That would kill the industries.
I agree with the hon. Member for Oswestry, who contrasted this debate with the previous three hours, when we had all sorts of people sitting on the Back Benches making speeches about parliamentary procedure. I do not know why the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) did not stay for this debate, after his previous remarks. He has gained a reputation as an expert on parliamentary procedure, but in doing so he has threatened the jobs of thousands of shipyard and aircraft workers. People outside the House do not understand what it is all about.
If the Bill does not go through quickly, we face the prospect of shipbuilding firms going into liquidation. Shipbuilding throughout the world is already in great difficulty. There is a recession in world trade, spare shipping capacity, and strong competition from Japan.
I want to diverge slightly to urge the Minister to co-operate with the EEC countries in forming a common policy towards the threat of Japanese shipbuilding. Britain, Germany and other European nations are involved. I should like to see a European shipbuilding policy established.
Some hon. Members are constantly calling for extensive import controls. If we imposed extensive import controls there would be retaliation, the net effect of which would be still further to reduce the volume of world trade. A reduction in the volume of world trade would lead to a further reduction in the demand for ships to carry goods from one country to another. The shipbuilding industry would thereby be further threatened, and that could be the final blow.
What is endangering the aircraft industry is the delay and uncertainty about the future. Will the Minister give us more information about the future of the HS 146 aircraft? The decision is long overdue. I saw a deputation last weekend consisting of middle management from Hawker Siddeley, at Hamble. They came to see me on a different matter relating to the certification of their union. They said "We may not be particularly in favour of nationalisation, but for goodness' sake let us have a decision one way or the other."
The Vosper Thornycroft shipyard, which builds warships, is in my constituency. It has extensive export orders. It is one of the three specialist warship-building companies in the country. I hope that the Government will stick to their policy of the past seven or eight years, of placing most warship orders with the three specialist companies, Vosper Thornycroft, Vickers and Yarrow.
When the Bill was first introduced, there was considerable apprehension among management and trade unions. They feared that the Government would set up a Morrisonian national structure for the shipbuilding industry. I am pleased to say that their fears have been


considerably allayed by the Organising Committee. I pay tribute to the Minister for appointing Admiral Griffin as Chairman of the Organising Committee. It is an excellent appointment, which has dispelled the rumours about who would be appointed.
The Organising Committee has done an excellent job. It has made clear that British Shipbuilders will not be a decision-making centralised bureaucracy. Local management is to retain a great deal of freedom. I hope that Vosper Thornycroft will retain its name. I think that has almost been agreed. In such matters the Organising Committee has shown a practical approach to its job.
The hon. Member for Oswestry asked why we do not choose to leave ship repairing out of the Bill. It so happens that in Southampton the ship repairing firm of Vosper Thornycroft also carries out naval shipbuilding. There is an agreement and interchangeability of labour. For example, if a couple of ships need urgent repairs, Vosper Thornycroft can transfer men from the shipbuilding yard to get on with the job. If the demand works in the other direction, men can be transferred from ship repairing to shipbuilding. Pension and welfare arrangements are almost identical.
What would happen if we took out ship repairing—

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman says that Vosper Thornycroft builds warships and that it should therefore repair warships. What would happen to the Royal naval dockyards, which are now repairing warships, if Vosper Thornycroft and other yards took on that work?

Mr. Mitchell: Either I did not make myself clear or the hon. Gentleman did not listen. I said that the ship repairing yard in Southampton repairs merchant ships, not warships. The yard that is owned by Vosper Thornycroft used to be two yards. One was owned by Vospers and the other by Harland and Wolff. There was an amalgamation, and the two yards are now owned by Vospers.
What would happen in Southampton if ship repairing were split from the Bill? It is clear that the interchangeability agreement would be threatened. There would

have to be a new agreement. If one section were owned by British Shipbuilders and the other remained in private ownership, there would be a disastrous situation. Southampton claims to be one of the most efficient shipbuilding and ship repairing yards in the country. No doubt others will dispute that, but that is its claim. One of the reasons for its efficiency is its excellent industrial relations. There is a proper agreement covering all the ship repairing and shipbuilding workers in the port. The arguments in another place and in this place to split ship repairing from the Bill would result in utter disaster in my area.
I accept that under the Parliament Act their Lordships have acted constitutionally. However, I believe that they have acted unwisely. One of the arguments was that the Government have a small majority and were elected on a minority vote. The latter point applies to every Government since 1945, Labour or Conservative. They have all been elected on a minority vote. The only time that the other place puts its foot down or wields the big stick is when a Labour Government presents it with Labour legislation. It has never taken that stand with Conservative legislation.
Surely the other should have put its foot down when one of the most ridiculous measures ever passed was presented to it by the previous Conservative Government—namely, the Industrial Relations Act. Many peers from the Cross-Benches, and even from the Conservative Benches, warned the then Government what would happen if that measure reached the statute book.

Mr. John Evans: They still voted for it.

Mr. Mitchell: As my hon. Friend says, they still voted for it and turned out in force to do so. They did not then argue "Let us give time for thought. Let us postpone the matter for a little while and give the Government another chance."
We cannot allow the other place to continue with its practice of delaying only that legislation which emanates from a Labour Government. What alarms me even more is that it seems that the other place has yielded to pressure from a public relations organisation working on behalf of certain ship repairing firms. We


have all been subjected to this to some extent. At the beginning of the campaign I went to a lunch organised by a public relations firm. I was invited to a second lunch and to a third one, but I declined. Many hon. Members probably went to one of the lunches. We all know what the object of the exercise was. I believe that the Lords yielded to pressure in a disgraceful way.
I fervently believe that unless the Bill gets on to the statute book as soon as possible the whole future of the shipbuilding industry in particular will be threatened. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that vesting day will be, at the latest, in June 1977.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall not follow many of the comments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), except to say that I agree, to some extent at least, with his concept of a European approach to the shipbuilding industry. I hope to return to that point later in my speech.
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman telling us of the good things that may come from the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry, and to hear him express the hope that Vosper Thornycroft would still look much as it does today. That showed his split-mind approach to the Bill, because, by its nature, the Bill will create a single industry rather than independent industries throughout the country.
Unlike the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, I was impressed by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), although I was a little sorry that my hon. Friend allowed himself to get landed in a rather awkward Irish bog. However, these things happen when one tangles with Irishmen. What my hon. Friend said had much force, in particular his accusation that the Government have not thought out in great detail the strategy that should underlie the Bill.
I think I am right in saying that this is the third attempt by the Government to get the Bill through the House of Commons. It is the grandson of Benn, and much time has passed since the first draft was presented to us. In that time,

many things have happened. Yet, so keen are the Government to get the Bill on to the statute book that they seem prepared to assume that the circumstances that held sway in 1974 and 1975 still hold good in December 1976. Given that fallacy, the Government are bound to produce a Bill that is inadequate for the task for which it has been designed.

Mr. John Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the only thing that has happened in the shipbuilding and shiprepairing industries since 1974 is that things have got much worse and that unless we take action quickly, irrespective of nationalisation, we simply will not have a shipbuilding industry left?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: That interjection does not help the argument that I want to advance. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that if the Bill had been on the statute book by the end of the summer the shipbuilding industry would have been in a different situation, he knows less about the industry of which he claims to be an expert than he believes.
A number of factors have come to light in the past 12 months, and it is very disappointing that the Government showed no willingness to take note of those factors and decide that the Bill should be redrafted in certain important respects before they brought it back to the House as they are doing in their effort to scramble it through this Chamber and then the other place, and so get it on to the statute book.
I want to look at the prospects that lie before the two industries as we approach the end of this year. The lesson that we are learning about the aircraft industry is that it is not likely to develop many new civil aircraft projects in the foreseeable future. In fact, the British industry and the industries in Europe and America will be developing existing aircraft as far as they can before investing the vast sums needed to produce a whole new generation of civil aircraft.
Reference has been made to the BAC 1–11 series 475. That aircraft shows that the British industry is looking realistically at the market, clearly with success just round the corner. It is saying "We have a good aeroplane. Let us see how far we can stretch it in terms of the numbers of passengers that it can carry. Let us


see if we can make it quieter, by introducing either hush kits to its engines or a new generation of engine." The industry is resisting, saying "Let us spend a lot of money on a completely new aircraft, with all that that involves." That is the right and sensible approach. I have no doubt that, if the Bill goes through the British Aerospace Corporation will take a broadly similar approach.
Regarding collaboration in Europe, the industry and, in particular, Mr. Alan Greenwood, of BAC, are making approaches to various West European companies with a view to setting up the right collaborative projects. But no one need tell me that these collaborations depend on this Bill, because they do not. The aerospace industry is doing and has done well. It has turned in record profits year after year, though a fat lot of thanks it gets from Labour Members.
The shipbuilding industry is in a different position. I know not enough about it to want to say very much, except later in my speech when I touch on the problems of Harland and Wolff.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) expressed concern about yards not having had enough investment put into them. I wish he would go to Belfast and look at Harland and Wolff. There has been huge investment in that company. The hon. Gentleman would see marvellous machines and great cranes. If he asks, "Why are there no ships on those slipways?" the answer is not lack of investment in that yard but lack of ships wanted in world markets.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber, but I am sure that the Minister of State will listen with the attentiveness that he always displays. On Second Reading of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill in 1975 the Secretary of State claimed that one reason why these industries should be brought into public ownership was that if public money was to be spent on them there there had to be public accountability. Indeed, as I want to make the point as strongly as I can, I shall quote from the right hon. Gentleman's speech in Hansard. Talking about the financial assistance which had been given to the

aircraft industry, the right hon. Gentleman said:
An industry which depends for its existence and progress on public money on this huge scale cannot be called a genuine example of private enterprise. It is much better that this massive public stake should be based on public ownership. Moreover, the provision of money on that scale to private firms means detailed monitoring—it has to be so—to achieve the degree of accountability that we all expect in this House.
If, instead, the public money is channelled into a publicly-owned undertaking, the accountability can be at the strategic, corporate level, and the substance of accounability can be maintained and improved, but the detailed intervention and monitoring by the Government under public ownership can be dispensed with."—[0fficial Report, 2nd December 1975; Vol. 901, c. 1450–51.]
I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman believed those words absolutely. I am sure that, as a Socialist, he would like to think those words are always the truth. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry suggested, the Secretary of State has presumably read "A Study of UK Nationalised Industries" recently published by the National Economic Development Office. If not, I shall read a short extract from it. A part of that document refers to this kind of accountability. It states:
Ministerial responsibility for nationalised industries is … ill-defined. The resulting confusion leads to a situation in which boards are not effectively required to account for their performance in a systematic or objective manner …
Despite the investigations and continuous efforts of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, Parliament has not been able to reassure itself, the general public or individual interest groups about the performance of nationalised industries.
Annual reports and accounts perform a limited function in their present form and are not an adequate means of assessing the performance of statutory duties;
There is widespread uncertainty in government departments about the underlying performance of nationalised industries;
Targets for return on net assets have proved an insufficient and misleading means of assessing the adequacy of current and past performance …
The consequences of government influence on board decisions cannot be disentangled from the results of decisions made at the board's own discretion;
Boards of nationalised industries sometimes seem to aspire to a freedom from public scrutiny which is at odds with their corporations' status as publicly owned enterprises.
and so on and so forth.
This is the public accountability that we are told we shall now achieve as a result of the Bill. That report was published a few weeks ago, and no one need tell me that we can pass this Bill tonight and believe in our hearts that we are establishing a new form of public accountability that will make the aircraft or shipbuilding industries more accountable than they have been in the past. Tell that to Sir Arnold Weinstock. Ask him what he thinks about public accountability? He will say that his companies involved in aircraft projects have been made to monitor everything that they do. He will also explain about Ferranti and the Bloodbound deal, when companies were asked to pay back vast sums of money because they were said to have overcharged. Has any nationalised industry been put in that state? Has any nationalised industry ever made such a large profit that it has been asked to pay money back? No hon. Members will be able to tell me of one, because none exists.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will the hon. Member quote from the report of Slater Walker?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I would have loved to quote from that enormous tome but I have not got it with me.
Public accountability is one of the planks on which those who advocate nationalisation so often stand. I suggest that the NEDO report absolutely damns the argument that nationalisation gives public accountability. In fact, it gives nothing at all. Until we have a nationalisation Bill that makes the type of proposals contained in that study workable, we shall not get public accountability. That means that we shall waste Britain's public funds on worthless projects. It means a waste of labour and people's efforts—a waste of money and resources that could go to other badly needed projects, particularly those required for their social consequences.
The Secretary of State told us that he was so sure that public accountability would exist that any future projects would not be monitored on the factory floor. Let us think of what he is really saying. He is saying that if Concorde were built by a nationalised industry the detailed monitoring which took place and which still cost Britain £600 million, would not have taken place. I hesitate to

think what figures we would now be discussing in terms of the cost of Concorde if he had his way.
I say to the Minister of State that until the Government take the question of public accountability more seriously than they have, until they cease to live in their dreams about what Socialism should be rather than what in fact it turns out to be, this nation will pay a very high price. It will be a very much higher price than just taking these companies into public ownership.
I make this last point on the question of accountability: we of the Opposition believed that there was an argument for rationalising the aircraft industry and for BAC and HSA getting together in one company. However, we also believe, as we have always believed, that the private enterprise system and structure allows for the sort of monitoring about which we are really concerned. It means that the companies have to use their assets as well as they know how, because for them there is always the possibility of bankruptcy. But within nationalised industries that final sanction never exists. Because it never exists, there is never the ultimate discipline which makes those in those industries use their money wisely. As Flight International said in its edition of 6th November 1976:
Nationalisation remains a maximum gross irrelevance, and it will almost certainly weaken rather than stiffen the Government's control of public spending. But, to be positive, a merged BAC/HS—which could be stronger than the sum of its parts—is worth having.
Those are my sentiments.
I want to turn briefly to the second part of what I want to say. This Bill, which was introduced in 1975 and which is being reintroduced tonight, contains certain amendments, some of which are due to the Standing Committee, of which I was a member, and some of which are due to the other place—although one would not think so to hear some of the comments that have been made. One of those amendments has created Clause 48, which is the clause that now requires British Shipbuilders and British Aerospace to pay some heed to the fact that there is a State-owned aircraft factory in Northern Ireland called Short Brothers and Harland—which once was sited in Rochester and which can lay claim to the proud title of the oldest aircraft


company in the world—and to the fact that there is Harland and Wolff.
Both of those companies are absolutely State-owned, yet, as we know—because we have raised this question previously —the present Government, for reasons best known to themselves, will have nothing to do with the suggestion that Harland and Wolff should be in British Shipbuilders, or that Short Brothers and Harland should be in British Aerospace. The Government have produced all sorts of reasons, all of which persuade me that they are terrified that if that were to happen someone might say Oh Lord, they have actually integrated something in Northern Ireland into a British institution."
So that that should not happen, the Government have kept this arms-length relationship going, despite the fact that they know, as I know, that the Chairman of Harland and Wolff at least would like to have a director on the main board of British Shipbuilders. As those companies are State-owned, one could hardly describe them as being in competition with each other. But a close link is not to be.
However, at least Clause 48 imposes a duty upon British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders to
have full regard to the need to consult
these companies. What a strange set of words. Why is it not simply "consult"? It is just to
have full regard to the need to consult
so the option is theirs. If they do not want to consult they do not have to. That is meant to satisfy all those whose livelihood depends on Short Brothers and Harland and on Harland and Wolff, who are subjects of Her Majesty the Queen and whose lives are decided by this Parliament. That is all that they are to have.
The clause goes on to say:
and wherever possible co-ordinate their activities with those of, any company incorporated in Northern Ireland".
It is "co-ordinate", but not "co-operate". They must get the division to make absolutely sure that they do not get closer than that.
Again I ask the Government why this should be so. The Minister of State must know—in case he does not, I have

brought a copy of Hansard for him—that on 22nd November, only a couple of weeks ago, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, told us that
the Government have agreed to waive the accumulated interest due on all Government loans outstanding
—to Short Brothers and Harland—
to write off loans of £5·05 million related to certain aircraft produced in the past: and to convert the remaining Government loans, totalling £8·95 million into share capital.
We know that the ownership of that company is in the following terms:
The issued share capital, as increased, will be held as follows: 61·45 per cent. by the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce; 33·85 per cent. by the Department of Industry; and 2·35 per cent. each by Harland and Wolff and the Rolls-Royce receiver."—[Official Report, 22nd November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 932–3.]
The Department of Industry now owns 33·85 per cent. of Short Brothers and Harland and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office says that the Secretary of State for Industry, as sponsor of the United Kingdom aerospace industry, will continue to have the same sort of responsibility for Shorts as for any other part of that industry. What absolute, arrant nonsense. The Government hand out the money to Shorts. They admit that the Department of Industry owns part of Shorts, and that the Secretary of State is responsible for Shorts, yet if one tells the Government that Short Brothers should be in the Aerospace Corporation they run a mile. I could say almost the same thing for Harland and Wolff, except that the plight of the people in the company will be so awful if it does not continue that I want nothing that I say to be treated flippantly or facetiously.
It seems to me inconceivable that we should set up two State industries, one in Northern Ireland and one in Great Britain, and that the Leader of the House should then tell my hon. Friends from Ulster, as he did last night, that he has been thinking of devolution not just in terms of Scotland and Wales but possibly in terms of Northern Ireland. Perhaps he recognises that it is under-represented, as heaven knows it is, for Northern Ireland is denied democracy and is different from any other region in the United Kingdom. I say that my hon. Friends from Ulster should remember the old Latin exhortation to "fear the Greeks even when bringing gifts."
This Government's concern is about survival and about Socialism. They are not concerned about Northern Ireland. If they were, they would see, as anyone can, the ridiculous absurdity that they are creating by setting up these two State industries so that they are in effect in competition with each other, but may consult if Big Brother requires.
If the Government are really serious in their intentions towards Northern Ireland, if they have set their hearts on this devolution that was referred to so amiably last night, and this greater representation at Wesminster, let them show their good faith by listening to the words of Dr. Quigley, whose report also came out a few weeks ago. The Minister of State blinks and wonders what it is all about. So that there will be no misunderstanding, let me say that the report was written by a civil servant, and its title is "Economic and Industrial Strategy for Northern Ireland".
In that report the author says that shipbuilding affords a practical example of regional and national policies. He goes on:
The future of Harland and Wolff is clearly of vital significance for the Northern Ireland economy. Equally clearly, the problems of Harland and Wolff cannot be viewed or treated in isolation from the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom as a whole. We believe this observation to be valid, whatever the institutional arrangements within which Harland and Wolff operates.
As a sign of the good faith of the Government towards Northern Ireland and its shipbuilding industry, perhaps the Minister of State can say tonight that even though it is not in the Bill he intends that the link between British Shipbuilding and Harland and Wolff and British Aerospace and Short Brothers and Harland shall be close, shall be to consult and shall be to co-operate. Until he puts something like that before the House, i shall vote against the Bill, as I did in 1975.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I will resist the temptation to follow the comments of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) about Northern Ireland and increased representation. It is a strange suggestion when his party has had a great deal of opportunity over the years to take some steps in that regard but has not pursued it.
The hon. Gentleman said that this was the third time that we had discussed the Bill. I think that it is the second, since the first time it was not proceeded with. But if he is right, for us it is third time lucky.
The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), who is not here now, unfortunately, made a contribution to our earlier debates about public ownership of the aircraft industry when he referred specifically, in a story straight from the horse's mouth, to the attitude of workers at the BAC factory at Warton in his constituency. Some of those workers live in my constituency. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that a Mr. Andrew Ridley, a member of my trade union and a member and supporter of the Conservative Party, has made it absolutely clear that most workers at that factory opposed nationalisation.
I do not wish to question the credentials of Mr. Ridley, but it is relevant to point out that we have never claimed 100 per cent. support for our measures. That would be absurd—as it would be for the Conservative Party to claim that it has over the centuries had majority support for the measures that it has pursued. One has to judge how one interprets the election of Members and Governments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) has said, it has been custom and practice, certainly since the war, to accept that the party with the majority of seats, even if it does not have a majority of votes, should form a Government and then pursue generally speaking the policy that it had advocated in the election. Therefore, when we in the Labour Party say—one can only applaud the Government for taking this course so firmly—that we have the support of the British people, we do so against that background.
I attended a weekend school of my union last weekend, where one of the students was Mr. Andrew Ridley. He broadly confirmed what the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde had said, but he also said that over recent months there had been a shift of opinion at BAC Warton and that more and more of the work force—including the white-collar workers, of whom he is one—were coming round to the view that the Bill was desirable.
I say this deliberately because there is a growing consciousness of the connection between the prospects of the aerospace industry and the likelihood of Government intervention, because of the general problem which faces producers of aircraft not only here but in France, Germany, America and elsewhere.
People are becoming aware that it is possible to make the advances that are increasingly required within that industry only on the basis of national and international co-operation. The workers are increasingly coming round to believing that the best way of achieving that national and international co-operation is through Government intervention in that industry. Yet again my value judgment has been strengthened by relatively minor discussions with a few people within the industry.
We inevitably come back to the whole question whether the actions that the Government are taking are legitimate. Over the years both sides of the House have accepted that Governments govern by consent. Without consent, the difficulty of governing is obvious. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) may find that remark rather humorous, but there is something very fundamental in it.

Mr. Burden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. What I found rather humorous was the fact that recent by-elections seemed to imply—I put it no higher—that the Government are not now governing with the support of the people of this country.

Mr. Thorne: I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman put forward a similar point of view during his own Government's rule when it was clear from the expressions outside what objections there were to the Industrial Relations Act. I recall the notice that the hon. Gentleman took to those objections and I recall the way in which his party steamrollered that measure through the House irrespective of growing public opinion and abhorrence with regard to that Act. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's point of view.
How do we determine consent? The hon. Gentleman and his party have always argued that one determines consent on the basis of the results that take place in a

general election. The party that wins the majority of seats, and the party that is called upon to form the Government, has the consent to govern on that basis. There is therefore no argument but that the Government are proceeding in a perfectly legitimate fashion.
One thing that is worthy of note is that this Government, unlike some of the Governments that have been formed by the Conservative Party, are doing something that the public sometimes feel is rather rare in terms of Government actions. They are carrying out what they put to the electorate in their manifesto. I am one of those hon. Members who believe that even this Government do not always do that. I would seek to criticise them when they fail to carry out the promises that they made to the electorate. But that claim cannot be made with regard to this legislation.
The public know where the Labour Party stands on this issue. They are confident that the Labour Government will continue to carry out this measure despite the difficulties with which they are being presented by gentlemen down the corridor and by their friends in this House. The Government are standing four-square behind the undertaking they gave to the electorate. They will see this undertaking carried through. That does not often happen in the history of Governments, and it is worth recording.
Why are workers giving support to this measure? It is because they recognise increasingly that Government intervention in these industries is vital and that planning is required—not entirely centralised planning but some regional planning and some planning within the various divisions of the industries. They also recognise the need for industrial democracy.
It may be suggested that Government intervention in these industries has been going on for many years. That is perfectly true. One of the appalling features of the present situation is that literally hundreds of millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money have been poured into these industries, without any accountability by the firms concerned other than in certain areas where researeh has been carried out and has been subsidised by Government Departments.
My increased contact with workers in the aerospace industry has made me feel


that over recent months there has been increasing optimism and expectancy linked directly with this question of public ownership. Far from seeing it as a threat to their future, increasingly they are confident that in British Aerospace under Government control they can make real progress and be able to lead more secure lives with the possibility of being involved in decision making in such a way that increasing satisfaction will be derived from their participation in this valuable industry.

9.42 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) and I was greatly impressed by his argument about a mandate for a Government. When the next General Election comes and the Scottish National Party emerges as the major party in Scotland, I hope that he will support our demands to set up a Scottish Government.

Mr. Thorne: The hon. Lady may be interested to know that I believe that we should have a system of proportional representation for the election of the Scottish Assembly. If we do, I am not too sure that her party will emerge with a majority.

Mrs. Bain: If the hon. Gentleman has not done so already, I hope that he will sign the Early-Day Motion urging the adoption of a system of proportional representation.

Mr. Thorne: I have already done so.

Mrs. Bain: There was another point in the hon. Gentleman's speech, and it echoed that made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), on which I wish to comment because my party agrees that, if there is one situation that we do not want to see continued, it is uncertainty about this Bill.
People outside will notice that SNP Members deliberately did not vote against the Government's procedural motion. Our reason is that we feel quite definitely that there is nothing to be gained by putting the Bill into limbo for another six months. It is disappointing that all the official Opposition Members who came into the Chamber for that debate have not seen fit to come in for this one.

Mr. Lambie: I know that the hon. Lady is new to the game of being her party's industrial spokesman, but may I remind her that, if she and her hon. Friends had voted for the Government in the spring of last year, this Bill would have been passed six months ago and the Scottish firms in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries would have been nationalised and assured of a good future. It is strange to hear this deathbed repentance now.

Mrs. Bain: That is the only speech tonight that the hon. Gentleman has not made from a sedentary position. If he and his hon. Friends from Scotland had joined us in trying to put pressure on the Government to set up a Scottish entity, they could have had this Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows the arguments perfectly well. There is no need for me to reiterate them now.
I know that I am speaking for the first time in this debate but I have followed it with great interest because many of my constituents work in the shipbuilding industry and have spent most of their lives in the industry. They, like me, feel that there has been a certain immorality and unreality about this debate in recent months. There is an immorality in the threats we have had that if the Bill is not passed jobs will be lost.
Representatives from all parties have challenged the Department of Industry time and again to give a guarantee of no redundancies and no closures but we cannot get such a categorical assurance. I am not convinced that somehow or other the passage of this Bill will guarantee jobs in industries which are under a severe threat and severe pressure. I cannot accept that one can just wave a magic wand and everything will be solved.
I see that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has returned to the Chamber. He is always present when a Member of the SNP speaks. It is very flattering. He would love to see a situation where there were redundancies in the privately-owned shipbuilding and aircraft industries in Scotland so that he could blame the Scottish National Party. He could use this as a political argument because the other political arguments of the Labour Party in Scotland are ineffective. The


Labour Party is looking for some weapon to stop the SNP in its tracks.
What further intrigues me is that we are told that somehow the workers are the only people interested in nationalisation. Some of the people who are keenest to see nationalisation in Scotland, particularly in shipbuilding, are the managers, because they want compensation from the Government when they close down the yards and men are made redundant.
I wish that Labour Member would try to take a more balanced attitude on the whole question and not sacrifice jobs on an ideological altar.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Would the hon. Lady explain what she means by managers looking for compensation? As I understand it any worker made redundant is entitled to redundancy pay, provided that he has worked for the qualifying period. That would be the case whether or not the industry is nationalised. Does she mean compensation for the owners, the managers or the men?

Mrs. Bain: I am talking about compensation for capital equipment and all the rest—for owners. Redundancy money is paid anyway as the hon. Member knows. That was a silly intervention.
The hon. Gentleman also knows the kind of rumours circulating in Scotland about what the Organising Committee has been saying. The rumours circulate because there is no categorical assurance that the three yards will continue.
Over the weekend members of my party received telephone calls indicating which yards would be closed down. These came from someone highly placed in the trade union movement. I find this extremely worrying. Unless the Government can give a guarantee that jobs will be preserved I cannot see why on earth they are insisting on bringing back this Bill time and again.
If we are concerned about jobs in those industries we should be looking at alternative ways of helping them. I draw attention to what has been happening in Norway, a country to which the SNP frequently looks. Norway has just announced measures to help the shipbuilding industry. Provisions will be made

in the Norwegian Government's budget next year for the purchase of ships to help the hard-pressed shipbuilding industry and to protect employment. The sum being talked about is 157 million kroner. Also, on an interim basis, there will be 50 million kroner for immediate use in connection with coastguard vessels, 49 million kroner for construction of defence ships, 37 million kroner for repair work and naval vessels, and 19·3 million kroner for the fisheries budget, for lighters, tugs and so on.
This is a more constructive approach to the industry. If the Government are genuinely concerned about protecting employment I hope that they will look at what is happening in Norway.
No matter what happens to the Bill there will still be problems in the shipbuilding industry. I hope that the Government will give the kind of guarantee for which we have asked, that they will order ships and operate a Norwegian system of preference. We shall be consistent tonight in our vote. Obviously we are concerned about jobs in Scotland. But my party is not convinced that the Government are doing anything to preserve jobs in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries in Scotland, and until such time as we hear to the contrary we shall continue to vote against the Government.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. John Evans: I am sure that the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) understands why the Government and her party part company. I think only of shipyard workers—Clydeside shipyard workers, Tyneside shipyard workers, Merseyside shipyard workers or Wearside shipyard workers. Where they work is immaterial. They are all interchangeable, and all can work in one another's yards and on one another's ships. My party's concern is not particularly for the Scottish shipbuilding industry, the English shipbuilding industry, or even the Welsh one. Our concern is for the British shipbuilding and ship repairing industries.

Mrs. Bain: I think that the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) will accept that I am frequently on record as saying that I am concerned about unemployment and poverty wherever it occurs. But I belong to a party which seeks alternative solutions to our problems in Scotland.


At the same time, I can accept that there are problems elsewhere and I shall do anything I can to help.

Mr. Evans: That was a long intervention. The workers in the industry, whether on Clydeside, Tyneside, Wearside or Merseyside, want the industry nationalised. They are not seeking to create the divisions for which the hon. Lady cries.
I think that the House will agree that this must be the longest-running Bill in the whole history of the House of Commons. I wish that hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies would quieten down and allow a mere Englishman to address himself to the Bill.
It is all very well for parliamentarians to exchange pleasantries or insults, but these great industries are sliding down the hill and unless action is taken quickly shipbuilding will slide into oblivion. The problems of that industry are not exclusively British or Scottish problems; they are ones which face the industry throughout the world.
Something which struck me as peculiar, particularly during the debates at the end of last Session, was that everyone—the House of Lords, the Conservative Party and the minority parties—agreed that the Government should be allowed to nationalise the shipbuilding, marine engineering and aircraft industries if only they would let go of the ship repairing industry. It was easy to see that these groups were able to swallow the camel of nationalisation of major parts of the industry but were straining on the gnat of the minor part.
It is difficult, after 12 months of debate, to find anything new to say, but I draw attention again to the fact that the shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering industries are major employers in developing regions of the country and that many thousands of jobs are at stake. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East referred to the fact that there were no guarantees that there will be no redundancies, but she has been in politics long enough to know that she can never be given such assurances, because of the many problems facing the shipbuilding industry throughout the world. I shall not, as she did, refer to Norway. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) earlier drew attention not to the dangers of self-protection,

but to the fact that in the last two weeks, according to Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the United States of America has moved into second place in the world shipbuilding league, although it has undoubtedly the highest-cost industry in the world. The reason for the United States moving up behind Japan is their protective measures.
It causes considerable concern, not only to shipbuilding workers but to many other people, to learn that British ship owners, who have been given substantial grants from taxpayers' money, are going to Japan, Korea and other parts of the world to have ships built, while British shipbuilding workers are unemployed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will note that in future we expect British ship owners to place a little more emphasis on patriotism and a little less emphasis on profit. There have undoubtedly been many instances where other countries have adopted strange tactics to win orders. British ship owners are prepared to admit that fact.
It is a matter of concern that while the industry is facing a bleak period, British ship owners, who have been given considerable sums of taxpayers' money, are still placing orders abroad.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be convenient if any urgent conversations could take place outside the Chamber, so that we might all hear what the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) is saying.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen said about the necessity of the Government taking part in EEC discussions to work out protective action against Japan. I hope that in these discussions the Government will bear in mind that British shipbuilding has a prime place in the shipbuilding industries of the Western world and will ensure that our industry starts on an equal footing with the rest of the world's producers.
Even if we had very well-organised industry, it would be difficult for us to compete against some of the low-cost, low-wage industries. One of our terrible problems has been the lack of investment in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries.
On Tyneside, workers in many yards are attempting to build ships with cranes which were installed in the Second World War. Workers in other parts of the world not only have new cranes but new yards, with new techniques and technology. If we want a modern industry in this country we must ensure that our workers at least have an equal chance to compete with workers in the rest of the world. Until that investment takes place—I recognise the financial difficulties and problems faced by the Government —and we are put on an equal footing, we must have protective measures to ensure that we retain a shipbuilding industry.
Great Britain is one of the greatest trading nations in the world, and we must retain a domestic shipbuilding capacity. It would be the height of criminal folly to allow that industry to slide into oblivion and to rely on other countries, particularly in the Far East and South America, for our shipbuilding capacity. We could run into very grave difficulties if we allowed that to happen.

Many speakers, particularly in another place, have referred to the fact that the ship repairing industry is a separate entity. Of course, some of us have tried to answer that repeatedly, but unfortunately our words seem to have fallen on stony ground.

The two things these industries have in common are ships, and the men who build and repair ships. The workers are joined with the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Trade Unions—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Second Reading of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 256.

Division No. 6.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Allaun, Frank
Cohen, Stanley
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Anderson, Donald
Coleman, Donald
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Archer, Peter
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Armstrong, Ernest
Concannon, J. D.
Flanney, Martin


Ashley, Jack
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Corbett, Robin
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Atkinson, Norman
Cowans, Harry
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ford, Ben


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Crawford, Douglas
Forrester, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Batas, Alf
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Bean, R. E.
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Freeson, Reginald


Beith, A. J.
Cryer, Bob
Freud, Clement


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davidson, Arthur
George, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Gilbert, Dr John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Ginsburg, David


Boardman, H.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Golding, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Albert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney)
Gould, Bryan


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Deakins, Eric
Gourley, Harry


Bradley, Tom
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Graham, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dempsey, James
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Doig, Peter
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Dormand, J. D.
Harper, Joseph


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Buchan, Norman
Dunn, James A.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Buchanan Richard
Dunnett, Jack
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Eadie, Alex
Hatton, Frank


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Edge, Geoff
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton amp; P)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell, Ian
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Henderson, Douglas


Canavan, Dennis
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hooley, Frank


Cent R. B.
English, Michael
Hooson, Emlyn


Carmichael, Neil
Ennals, David
Horam, John


Carier, Ray
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Cartwright, John
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Evans, John (Newton)
Huckfield, Les


Clemitson, Ivor
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)




Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Small, William


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr M. S (E Kilbride)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Mitchell, R. C (Soton, Itchen)
Snape, Peter


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Molloy, William
Spearing, Nigel


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Moonman, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Janner, Greville
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stallard, A. W.


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


John, Brynmor
Moyle, Roland
Stoddart, David


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stott, Roger


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Strang, Gavin


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Newens, Stanley
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Noble, Mike
Swain, Thomas


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Oakes, Gordon
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Judd, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Kaufman, Gerald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thompson, George


Kelley, Richard
Ovenden, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Kerr, Russell
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Padley, Walter
Tierney, Sydney


Kinnock, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Tinn, James


Lamble, David
Pardoe, John
Tomlinson, John


Lamborn, Harry
Park, George
Tomney, Frank


Lamond, James
Parker, John
Torney, Tom


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Pendry, Tom
Tuck, Raphael


Leadbitter, Ted
Penhaligon, David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Lee, John
Perry, Ernest
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Prescott, John
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Lipton, Marcus
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Litterick, Tom
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Loyden, Eddie
Radice, Giles
Ward, Michael


Luard, Evan
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Watkins, David


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Reid, George
Watt, Hamish


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Weetch, Ken


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weitzman, David


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wellbeloved, James


MacCormick, Iain
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Welsh, Andrew


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Robinson, Geoffrey
White, Frank R. (Bury)


McElhone, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn
White, James (Pollock)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Whitlock, William


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


MacKenzie, Gregor
Rooker, J. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Mackintosh, John P.
Rose, Paul B.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Madden, Max
Rowlands, Ted
Wilson(Alexander (Hamilton)


Magee, Bryan
Ryman, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Mahon, Simon
Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Mellalieu, J. P. W.
Selby, Harry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marks, Kenneth
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Woodall, Alec


Marquand, David
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Woof, Robert


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)



Maynard, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)



Meacher, Michael
Sillars, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Silverman, Julius
Mr. James Hamilton and


Mikardo, Ian
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Joseph Ashton.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Britian, Leon
Corrie, John


Alison, Michael
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Costain, A. P.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brotherton, Michael
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)


Arnold, Tom
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crouch, David


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Crowder, F. P.


Awdry, Daniel
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)


Baker, Kenneth
Budgen, Nick
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Banks, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Bell, Ronald
Burden, F. A.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Drayson, Burnaby


Kenyon, W.
Carlisle, Mark
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Berry, Hon Anthony
Carson, John
Dunlop, John


Bitten, John
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Churchill, W. S.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Blaker, Peter
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Elliott, Sir William


Body, Richard
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Emery, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clegg, Walte
Eyre, Reginald


Bottomley, Peter
Cockcroft, John
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Falrgrieve, Russell


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Cope, John
Fell, Anthony


Braise, Sir Bernard
Cormack, Patrick
Finsberg, Geoffrey







Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lamont, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Renton, Tim (Mid_Sussex)


Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lawson, Nigel
Ridley, Hon


Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridsdale, Julian


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lloyd, Ian
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fry, Peter
Loveridge, John
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McCrindle, Robert
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Gardner, Edward (S Fyide)
McCusker, H.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Macfarlane, Neil
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
MacGregor, John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sainsbury, Tim


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Goodhew, Victor
Madel, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Colin


Gorst, John
Marten, Neil
Shersby, Michael


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mates, Michael
Silvester, Fred


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mather, Carol
Sims, Roger


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Maude, Angus
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gray, Hamish
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Griffiths, Eldon
Mawby, Ray
Speed, Keith


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spence, John


Grylls, Michael
Mayhew, Patrick
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hall, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Halt-Davis, A. G. F.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Sproat, lain


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter
Stainton, Keith


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miscampbell, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hannam, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanley, John


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Moate, Roger
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hastings, Stephen
Molyneaux, James
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Havers, Sir Michael
Monro, Hector
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus
Stokes, John


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Heseltine, Michael
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Tapsell, Peter


Hicks, Robert
Morgan, Geraint
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hodgson, Robin
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Tebbit, Norman


Holland, Philip
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David
Thomas, Rt Hon D. (Hendon S)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Neave, Airey
Townsend, Cyril D.


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Neubert, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Newton, Tony
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Normanton, Tom
Viggers, Peter


Hurd, Douglas
Nott, John
Wakeham, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Onslow, Cranley
Welder, David (Clitherae)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


James, David
Osborn, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wall, Patrick


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Walters, Dennis


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Jopling, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil
Wells, John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pattie, Geoffrey
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas


Kilfedder, James
Pink, R. Bonner
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Young. Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Younger, Hon George


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis



Kirk, Sir Peter
Raison, Timothy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Knox, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)

Question accordingly agreed to.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. John Evans: I was saying before the Division—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask those hon. Members who intend to

withdraw from the Chamber to do so quietly and those who have urgent conversations to conduct to hold them elsewhere.

Mr. Evans: I was saying before the Division that some have alleged that these industries are separate. I was pointing out that the workers in the industries are combined in their trade union movement and the employers in the industries are combined in their employers' association. There is no


point in my repeating this if it is to fall on deaf ears, particularly the deaf ears of those who know nothing about the industry. I can only say that it is a fact and that the workers and employers in the industry know this.
Others have alleged that the reason the ship repairing industry should be left out of the Bill is that it raises a question of dynamic marketing. Those who allege that the industry as it is to be taken over will not have dynamic marketing are talking nonsense. One of the important criteria which have been introduced in the Bill is that the industry will be organised on a regional basis. That is something that we on this side welcome, and I should have though that the Scottish National Party would have welcomed it because it will bring a Scottish dimension to the industry.
We all know that the main cause of many of the problems we have had with the Bill in the House was the very skilful and expensive campaign conducted by Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited. The workers in the industry were conned by the management. I point out now, as I did on the last occasion, that the strategy in ship repairing is that there will be a major repairing establishment on every major estuary in the United Kingdom. That strategy is common sense.
The Bristol Channel is one of the major potential areas of growth for ship repairing. It must be, otherwise the managing director of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited would hardly have made application to the Government for a very substantial loan to enable him to extend his facilities. That is something that the workers in Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited will take on board as the future unfolds and they will recognise that they are in a very great potential growth area.
It is nonsense and, indeed, dangerous to suggest that the Government will direct work away from the Bristol Channel to areas of high unemployment. We have said many times that there is no power in the Bill to do this and that the Government have no intention of doing it. The Government would be foolish to try to do so. Shipping is an international business. Those who own and run ships are free to send them anywhere in the

world and if anyone tries to direct them to send their ships to a place to which they do not want to send them, they will take their ships away.
On the question of the continued employment of workers in the industry, there can be no guarantee that jobs will be saved. We have these very serious problems. The shipyard workers themselves are well aware of the problems. Throughout their working lives they have faced problems of redundancy and layoff. They know the industry and the state of the order books. They know where the orders are going and the reasons why some of the orders are going there.
Shipbuilding and ship repairing in Britain have an assured future only when we adopt a national strategy and have a coherent policy for the industry. The greatest mistake that the Labour Government made was in 1968 when, after the Geddes reorganisation, they did not nationalise the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries.
There is one consolation. Workers and management have learned the lessons of that reorganisation. They will not make the same mistakes again. Many mistakes were made and millions of pounds of the tax-payers' money have been poured down many drains because of the inherent faults in the Geddes reorganisation.
The continued success and existence of the industry is vital. Some Members in this House do not take a nationalist view and attempt to protect the jobs of one group of workers. I hope that I can claim to speak not on behalf of Merseyside workers, nor on behalf of my ex-Tyneside colleagues, but on behalf of all shipbuilding and ship repairing workers throughout the United Kingdom. Our concern is for all workers.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East is not in her place. I should like to quote from yesterday's Glasgow Herald which carries the headline:
Nationalists lost us 230 jobs—union man.
The union man concerned was James Ramsay, a Clyde district delegate of the Boilermaker's Society at the Alexander Stephen's ship repair yard. He said:
These men


who are to be laid off on 4th January,
are the first victims of the failure of the Bill to get through Westminster … I blame the Scottish Nationalists and those bloody old fools in the House of Lords. They have created this situation by their failure to support a necessary piece of Government legislation. There were plenty of potential buyers but now they are shying away because of the uncertainty over the yard's and the industry's future. If this is an example of the SNP's policy of attracting or keeping jobs in Scotland, then God help us.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: As an ex-employee of the Glasgow Herald, I never thought that I should hear a Labour Member endorse

what it said. If the hon. Gentleman believes what the Glasgow Herald says, he will believe anything.

Mr. Evans: I was quoting Mr. James Ramsay, the Clyde district delegate of the boilermakers' society.
I finish on this note. We have had a great shipbuilding and ship repairing industry. We have got a great shipbuilding and ship repairing industry. Unless the Bill goes through, and unless it goes through the other place in the near future, we shall not have any industry, never mind a great industry.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Neville Trotter: The fundamental fact about the future of the shipbuilding industry is that it has no future at all unless it is efficient. The chairman of the Organising Committee, in speeches which he has made throughout the country, has made it clear that this is an international industry. He recognises that there is no captive market and that, if we cannot compete in a difficult world market, there will be no future whatever for this industry.
We should look at the Government's proposal against the fundamental requirement: will State ownership make the industry more efficient or not? Looking at the record of every nationalised industry, I cannot see how any rational person can say that State ownership is the way to salvation for the shipbuilding industry.
What do we find in the existing State-owned yards? We find the worst tales of inefficiency in the country. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) referred to the taxpayers' money going down drains. I suggest that some of the biggest drains are the State-owned yards. About 87 per cent. of all the State money which has gone into the industry has gone down the drains in those State-owned yards.

Mr. Harry Selby: Is it not a fact that a large proportion of the money given to the yards has been spent on modernising them because the previous owners took out all the profits?

Mr. Trotter: It is a sad fact that the Public Accounts Committee greatly criticised the Govan yard for its inefficiency and continuing failure to meet productivity targets which were set when millions of pounds were poured into the yard. The tragedy is that enormous sums have been spent on capital equipment without the hoped for improvement in productivity and there have been continuing losses at the end of the day.
One of the most worrying features about the proposal to nationalise the industry is that the efficient yards—the Swan Hunters of this world—may be in danger of being cut back as a result of these sacred cows—the present State-owned yards—being continued in future.
This is a great worry to some of us on Tyneside. Indeed, one sometimes wonders why the Government are so determined to put the industry's headquarters on Merseyside. They have not so far said where they will put it but the feeling is that it will be on Merseyside. Is that because there is no future on Tyneside, and is that why the industry's natural site for a headquarters is being ignored? Communications from Merseyside are not good. Just about the only place to which one can take a plane from Liverpool is the Isle of Man, and there is not much shipping there. There is no reason to put the headquarters on Merseyside except perhaps that there is to be no future for the industry in the Tyne and Wear area.
The real reason for the nationalisation proposals is of course dogma. There are those on the other side who do not believe in private ownership. There are others who believe in a mixed economy but they are prepared to do a bargain to prolong their period in office. That is what is happening on this Bill as with so many other of the Government's proposals.
The only positive act by the Government has been to cut back naval orders. But more naval orders is one of the ways in which the industry could have been helped. It would have been better to increase the size of the navy. That would have helped the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member has a great knowledge of the industry and Tyneside. Without the through-deck cruiser that we have ordered and the other orders that we have placed on the Tyne the position of the people working there would be much worse than it is today. Of all people—and he has both integrity and knowledge—he is not a man fitted to make an allegation of that kind.

Mr. Trotter: Before coming to the Chamber I consulted Hansard. In answer to a Question that I asked about how many jobs would be lost as a result of the naval cut-back, the then Minister of State for Defence said that 11,000 jobs would be lost to the shipbuilding


industry. Of course it is true that the building of a particular ship produces jobs, but what about the cuts? There has been a one-seventh cut in destroyers, a one-seventh cut in frigates and a one-third cut in Royal Fleet auxiliaries, which were often built on the Tyne. This is a time when the Soviet Navy is expanding and there is therefore a sound case for increasing rather than cutting naval expenditure.
The main indictment of the Government is that after nearly three years in office, after 1,000 days, they have no plans for the future of the industry other than to take it into public ownership. That is irrelevant to the industry's future. There are no plans, and we have no idea of what the future holds. In all the numerous debates no Minister has enlightened us about the future structure, strategy or size of the industry.
I suspect that many men in the industry are under the delusion that their jobs will be maintained through this change to public ownership. An hon. Member opposite spoke of the optimism, confidence and security for the future. But Mr. Graham Day, Chief Executive of the Organising Committee, said that if we do not contemplate the fact of an inadequate number of orders, many more people will get hurt than is necessary. It is inevitable that there will be some contraction in the shipbuilding industry. But after three years in office the Government have not issued a word about their plans. They still try to pretend that there is no need for jobs to be lost. That is not the case.
Why have the Government not informed us of the facts of life for this industry? The world's shipyards are capable of turning out 50 million tons of shipping a year. The Japanese alone can turn out 18 million tons and the world demand is only 12 or 13 million tons a year.
The Minister of State and I travelled round the world in opposite directions this summer but we turned up in the same places. He saw, as I saw, the new yard in Korea. I do not know whether the statistics that he was given were quite the same as mine. My recollection, however, was that they were working some 60 hours a week. I went around

the yard on a Saturday afternoon. Beforehand I suggested that that was a funny time to be going around a shipyard, but the people there replied "Why? There are 19,000 men hard at work." That was so. A Saturday afternoon was no different from any other day. These 19,000 men were working for about £20 a week and turning out the same standard ships as built by Govan Shipyard on the Clyde.
Hon. Members may laugh. They may not be pleased to hear that, but it is a fact. They may think that factor laughable, but it is a fact of life, and that is the true competition faced by Govan and other British merchant shipbuilders. The Minister must have found, as I did, that it is competition which even the Japanese have found very worrying. That is the true competition facing our industry.
It is a considerable indictment of the present Government that after 1,000 days in office they have put forward no plans whatever for the future of this industry. They have deluded those working in it into thinking that by putting it into public ownership their jobs will be made secure, when the only thing that can achieve that is efficiency. It is a very strong indictment against the Government that they cannot give any answer to the question of the size, strategy and structure of this industry in the future. Either they are determined on secrecy, which is disgraceful, or else they have no plans. I hope that in winding up the debate the Minister of State will advise us which of those alternatives is the truth.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Terry Walker: The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) will not expect me to follow up his remarks on shipbuilding. I want to speak mainly about the aircraft industry, which is of concern to my constituents in the Bristol area.
The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) seemed to treat this whole matter as an academic argument about nationalisation and about the rôle of the House of Lords. I was sorry that he brought in the argument about the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire) because it detracted from the quality of his speech. Certainly the style of presentation of the hon. Member for Oswestry is markedly removed


from the flamboyant style of his predecessor in Shadow office, the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). During the last General Election campaign, the hon. Member for Henley came into the West Country trying to solicit the votes of aircraft workers and tramped the country trying to talk to them about the Opposition's policy on the aircraft industry.
This is not an academic argument about nationalisation. The position of the British aircraft industry is now too grave for that. Without public ownership our aircraft industry as we know it will collapse, because there are very few plans for the future.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has visited Bristol to talk to shop stewards, with me, and to talk to the management of BAC about future plans for the industry. I think that he was there on one occasion when we were told by the BAC management that there were virtually no plans for the industry. We were told then "You do not fill up the petrol tank if you are going to sell the car." If that is the position, the nationalisation of the aircraft industry is the only thing that will save the workers' jobs.
What we are talking about tonight is not an academic question but the matter of men's livelihoods and the livelihood of their families. That is what is at stake. Cities such as Bristol have been far too relaxed about aircraft production over the years. Many of us have been fearful about the prospects if something happened. We have suffered uncertainty for several decades. The things that have happened to this Bill, both in the hybridity sense and in the sense of the action taken in the other place, have resulted in grave uncertainty, which in turn has put men's jobs in jeopardy. The delay will eventually mean the loss of jobs and job prospects for the workers.
People at the BAC plant at Filton are objecting, and the management and shop stewards are worried about the situation. They ask what will happen to the factory if the Bill does not go through. The delay in implementing the plans that were initiated by this Government has been disastrous for job prospects in the industry.
Successive Governments have over the years given millions of pounds to the British aircraft industry, and it has been reliant on that money. Now is the time for greater accountability in the industry because, as has been said by many of my hon. Friends, there has been a lack of investment by private enterprise firms in the aircraft industry, and that cannot be contradicted.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) referred to the rôle of Sir Arnold Weinstock. As he has been mentioned, I think I should tell the House of the worries of the workers about what Sir Arnold Weinstock has said in the past. He has given the impression that if BAC is not nationalised he would have it withdrawn from civil aviation altogether and concentrate on more lucrative elements of production.
Bristol relies on the aircraft industry, and the site at Filton, which is heavily dependent on the Concorde project, is one of those things about which a decision is needed now. Decisions have to be made by the new Corporation, and one reason for the consultations that some of my hon. Friends and I have had with Lord Beswick has been to secure something for the workers so that we can tell them exactly what is to happen.
The decision that the House has taken about this Bill on a number of occasions has strengthened the resolve of those in the trade union movement to see this industry brought into public ownership, because decisions have to be made now about the future of the Concorde project as a whole. These decisions need to be made in the context of the new Corporation. They cannot be made by people who may be relinquishing their responsibilities in a few months' time.
Decisions have also to be made about a possible 150 to 180-seater aircraft for use in the 1980s. The HS146 is one plane that is still on the shelf, and a decision will have to be made about that. A decision is needed also on the BAC 111. Hon. Gentlemen say that more BAC 111s are being produced, but that is because of the guarantee that has been given by the Government for the financing of this aircraft. I went to Filton and saw these planes being made, and it is the Government who have to take all the flak in these matters.
The message that I want to hear going forth from this debate is that the Bill is going forward again. If there is any further delay it will mean that of the three BAC factories at Hum, Weybridge and Filton, one will have to close. If there is further delay, the question will be, which one? I do not want my constituents who work in Filton to be thrown on the scrap heap, and I am sure that those hon. Members who represent the other places I have mentioned take the same view. We need an end to the uncertainly, a decision one way or the other. That is why I hope that we shall proceed tonight; otherwise, one of these factories will come under the axe.
The delay has meant that time is now running out. The birth of the new British Aerospace must not be longer delayed. I congratulate the Secretary of State on his great resolve in pressing ahead with the Bill against all the opposition. I hope that he will be rewarded by seeing it on the statute book early in 1977.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: When the Bill was amended by the other place in a way unacceptable to the Government, the Secretary of State said that it was the Tory Peers only who had defeated it. That was uncharacteristic and ungenerous. In fact, six Independents, 16 Liberals and at least 44 others who took no party Whip voted against it—including former Labour Cabinet Ministers. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman on reflection will want to withdraw that statement, which, as well as being uncharacteristic and ungenerous, was misleading —and that is something that we have not learned to expect from him.
Will the Bill ensure the survival and virility of the aircraft and shipbuilding and repairing industries? If it is to ensure that those working in the industries retain their jobs, it must produce orders for ships to be built and repaired. The Secretary of State admitted tonight that there had been a worldwide decline in the demand for new ships and that it would be difficult to ensure that the yards were kept busy. He could give no promise that that would happen.
We all know that change of ownership, from private to public, will not provide one extra order from overseas shipowners

for a ship to be built or repaired here unless price and delivery are competitive with those of ships built abroad. Indeed, as the Secretary of State agreed earlier tonight by nodding his head, we must also take into account countries new to shipbuilding, which will be competing with us for the first time.
When I asked the Prime Minister recently how many existing shipyards would be kept in operation after nationalisation, he made it clear that he could give no promise. I asked him whether, if orders were not forthcoming from overseas, the Government would build ships themselves, and if so, what they would do with them and how they would pay for them. I asked whether he could ensure that the present workers would retain their jobs. He said that there must be some rationalisation. The Secretary of State knows that, unless we can obtain orders in competition with overseas companies, there will be a cutback. I hope that the Minister will admit it.
Many hon. Members opposite are under the delusion, as are perhaps some workers in the shipyard and ship repairing industry, that the mere act of nationalisation and State ownership will ensure that they keep their jobs and that they will prosper. When I asked the Secretary of State where the orders would come from he said that British shipowners would be encouraged to place their orders in this country.
Will the Minister of State tell us what encouragement will be given to them? Will sanctions be imposed on them? If so the Government must take into consideration that if British shipowners are forced to purchase their ships in British yards, if those ships cost more than they would cost in foreign yards and if they take longer to deliver, it will make the operating costs very much higher. The Government must also consider that the loan charges on such high capital cost equipment will enormously increase the cost and the difficulties of operating them profitably if there are long delays in delivery.
How do the Government intend to keep the shipyards in this country open? How will they ensure that those yards will continue to employ the men who are already working in those yards and to expand the labour force?
What will happen if the British shipyard cannot get orders from abroad? What will happen if the Government are not prepared to put down orders? What will happen if the Government do not force the British shipowners to purchase ships in this country? Considering the decline in tonnage over recent years I would suggest that the Government will have to bring pressure upon the British shipowners and impose sanctions on them. If they intend keeping yards open and if we get all their ships built in British yards, do the Government really believe that that will be enough to keep the existing number in full employment and full operation? These are things that we need to know.
I questioned the Minister of State a few days ago about ship repairing, which has caused me considerable concern. I pointed out that in the past practically all the repairs to naval vessels have been done by the Royal Naval dockyards. They have had the power to undertake these repairs. Can the Minister of State give a categorical assurance that the nationalisation of the private yards will not mean that in the future the Royal Naval dockyards will have taken away from them the repair and refit of Royal Navy vessels upon which they depend for their very existence?
Does anyone really believe that State ownership brings efficiency to any industry? As the threat of nationalisation has grown, why is it that our industrial efficiency, as expressed in world trade, has declined so dramatically and so drastically? This is a fact which is there for all the world to see.
Many Government supporters are at issue with the Prime Minister in that they do not want a mixed economy. They want nationalisation right across the board, and, if they were honest, they would say so. The Prime Minister will have a very hard battle to ensure that there is a mixed economy. But, with the constant erosion of it by more and more nationalisation, it becomes less effective and more dependent upon the Government and upon the nationalised industries which serve it.
This is not the way to ensure the future prosperity of Britain. It is the way to further industrial decline, and I am sure that time will show that this

act of nationalisation of the aircraft, shipbuilding and ship repairing industries will not bring one additional aircraft, one additional order from overseas for ships to be built here, or one additional ship built abroad for repair in this country.
Nor will this Act ensure that the people already working in our shipyards will stay in employment. As soon as the Bill is passed and the industry is looked at, I believe that there will be a cutback in the number of people working in our shipbuilding and ship repairing industries.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. David Lambie: I want to echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) in hoping that this Bill will now reach finality. I spoke in the Second Reading debate on the original Bill, I took part in the 58 very long sittings of the Committee, and I participated in the debates on Report and Third Reading. I looked forward to vesting date on 1st June, 1st July, 1st August, 1st October and 1st January 1977. Now I hope that the vesting date really will be 1st February 1977. We need some finality to this Bill, and I hope that we shall reach that stage, if only for the sake of those who work at Scottish Aviation and live in my constituency.
Scottish Aviation is one of the firms included in the nationalisation proposals. Scottish Aviation, with only 5 per cent. of the total work force in British Aerospace, will go to the wall unless it is nationalised. At present, it is being squeezed out of existence. During the past two years, its labour force has dropped by 50 per cent., from 2,600 to 1,300. This small unit on the periphery of the British aerospace industry will fail if it is not nationalised.
I speak tonight on behalf of the management and the workers—the shop stewards' committee—of Scottish Aviation, because I can tell my Scottish nationalist Friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"]—that both sides of the industry in Scotland want it nationalised.

Mr. Michael Grylls: When the hon. Gentleman speaks about vesting dates, would not he do well to remember that the delay was the fault of the Secretary of State? It was


he who lost his temper and refused to accept the Lords amendments. If he had not done that, he would have had vesting. He is to blame, because he lost his temper and, with it, the Bill.

Mr. Lambie: It is always a mistake to give way at this time of night. Interruptions halt the flow of thought. I was making the point that the workers and management at Scottish Aviation want the firm nationalised because unless it is properly dealt with it will go to the wall.
This has been an unreal debate. On Monday, and yesterday, shop stewards of Scottish Aviation were asking me "What will happen. The Government have a majority of one. Will you win?" I can remember earlier debates when senior members of the Opposition got so heated that they lifted the Mace and threatened innocent Labour Members. We had arguments about hybridity and equality of votes and we had Mr. Speaker giving a casting vote. Now the whole country is watching, wondering what will happen. Yet during the whole of this debate I could have counted the number of Opposition Members present on the fingers of one hand.

Mr. Michael Marshall: The hon. Member should look behind him.

Mr. Lambie: I am not interested in that. We do not need to be here now because we want the Bill to get through. Our Whips are telling us not to speak. There is one saying to me now "Do not speak. Let us get on with the vote." During the Divisions we have had majorities of 20 and 40—

Mr. Michael Marshall: Would the hon. Member care to confirm and place it on the record that there are 17 Labour Members present compared with 32 Opposition Members?

Mr. Lambie: The hon. Member came in to the debate at nine o'clock. It began long before then.
I was interested to note that the Scottish National Party had a new industry spokesman. I must say that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) is better looking than the old spokesman. The hon. Lady made as good a speech tonight on industry as she usually makes on education.
We heard that there was a palace revolution last week in the SNP parliamentary party and that Margo Macdonald, the party's vice-president, came down, hell-bent on dealing with some of the SNP Members of Parliament. She knocked on the door and was told that she had no locus here and that she should get out. She had to leave. I thought, when I saw the hon. Lady replacing the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), that the palace revolution had been successful and that the Socialists inside the SNP had won—

Mr. Crawford: rose—

Mr. Lambie: I am coming to the hon. Member. He should sit down for the present. Although the SNP has changed its spokesman the same speech writer is being used. He was sitting beside the hon. Lady telling her what to say when she deviated. We know the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) from the past. The hon. Member challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) when he was reading from the Glasgow Herald and said that it was a reactionary paper. He used to write the speeches for the Tories in Scotland. Now he is writing the same speeches for the Tories in the SNP. We have not had a palace revolution, as I had hoped.

Mr. Crawford: I am amused by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I did not realise that he actually read The Times. If he believes everything he reads in it he will believe anything. If The Times can so garble the events and happenings in a small party such as the SNP, with 11 members, I hate to think what it does to reports of meetings of the Cabinet and the Shadow Cabinet.

Mr. Lambie: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire should be honest and admit that he wrote speeches for the Scottish Tories and he is now writing the same speeches for the Tories in the Scottish National Party. He should be honest and not put up this camouflage about stories in The Times and the Glasgow Herald. The only thing I read in The Times today was a defence of Sir Hugh Fraser who stole £4 million from shareholders and gave part of it to the gamblers in Monte Carlo and another part to the Scottish National Party


to fight the Labour Party. I do sometimes read both the Glasgow Herald and The Times. The Scottish National Party had an opportunity tonight to vote for the Government and to give us that secure majority which will allow us to nationalise the shipbuilding and aircraft industries in Scotland and give some guarantee of security in those industries.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East used the example of the Norwegian shipbuilding industry and said that it was one that we should follow. But we are following it. If the hon. Lady knew anything about the Norwegian shipbuilding industry, and had not just read the Tory speech prepared by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, she would also know that the industry is very nearly nationalised.

Mrs. Bain: I should like to assure the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) that I am quite literate and can write my own speeches. The real difference between the Norwegian Government and our Government is that the Norwegians are not bankrupt and crawling on hands and knees to others for money. A Scottish Government, with access to resources, could build the sort of industry that we need.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that a short time ago the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) declared that it was stupid to give way at this time of night.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the greatest respect, does it not seem that the Deputy Speaker sometimes intervenes when my party happens to have the floor?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I strongly resent that accusation against the Chair. I was merely reminding the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire of what he had said earlier. It was nothing to do with the Scottish National Party or any other party.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: It happens all the time.

Mr. Lambie: It is very difficult to pin down the Scottish National Party on anything because, whenever one takes up a point with its Members, they do not answer it but move on to another point.

I repeat my earlier statement to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East. If she knew anything at all about the Norwegian shipbuilding industry, she would know that it was a Government-controlled, nationalised industry.
During the spring of this year I visited a major shipbuilding yard near Stavanger in Norway. We were told that the Government were going to take it over and to supply the necessary finance. I would like to see the Norwegian example followed here. That is why I support nationalisation and believe that the Government should be given control over the direction of investment in the shipbuilding industry.
I say to Members of the Scottish National Party that this Bill would have been on the statute book nine months ago but for their failure to support the Government. It is all very well for them to say that they did not vote on the procedural motion because they want to see some finality. We could have had that last May if the Government had had the guaranteed support of the Scottish National Party. But what were Scottish National Party Members doing?

Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirling-shire): They were boozing.

Mr. Lambie: They were tearing up telegrams they had received.

Mr. Crawford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) asked what SNP Members were doing, I distinctly heard the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) say that they were boozing. Is that a parliamentary expression?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I did not hear that remark.

Mr. Lambie: The SNP Members were tearing up telegrams from the shop stewards in shipyards on the Clyde and from the joint works committee of Scottish Aviation. That is how they were representing Scottish workers.
I hope that the Government push through the Bill. My only disappointment is that we are not also considering a Bill to abolish the House of Lords. I hope that the Government push ahead


with the nationalisation of these industries. It is the only way to provide a secure future for them and the workers in Scotland.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: As a member of the Committee which sat on 58 occasions to consider this Bill, I could be forgiven for thinking that we had deployed every possible argument on the measure.
The recent altercation between this House and another place has focused attention on the weakest plank in the Government's platform. There have been many references in recent months to the urgent need for this measure. Time and again, Ministers and their supporters have said how terribly urgent it is that the shipbuilding industry should be taken into public ownership.
Tonight we have heard quotations from The Times, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) saying what a shame it was that the SNP did not support the Government earlier this year and the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) saying that his constituents who work in a BAC factory—as do some of mine—are anxious to know the outcome of the Bill because there is great uncertainty and they are worried about their future.
When the Government took office in February 1974, they were saying that it was urgent to get these industries—which have been put together in one Bill for reasons which no one with any sanity can understand—taken into public ownership. If it were so urgent, why did it take from February 1974 to the first few days of December 1975 before we had the Second Reading of the Bill? This was supposed to be so urgent to the future of the industries and the workers, yet we had to wait not six weeks or six months but 22 months for a Second Reading. Even after the Bill left this House, there was a delay of five or six weeks before another place started to consider it.
Last week, when the Bill had finally finished its ricocheting between the two Houses, the Government were still bleating and trumpeting about it being a desperately urgent measure and that the workers were anxiously awaiting the out-

come. The Government had their chance to have the Bill, but they chose to do the other thing. We should be delighted to know the reasons for that decision.
The BAC, Hawker Siddeley, the shipbuilding and aircraft industries are saying that the Government could have had them in public ownership last week were it not for the fact that they were afraid to introduce a separate Bill to cover ship repairing. Consequently, we have to go through the whole thing again.
That is the question, and I have never yet heard an answer to it. That is the way in which uncertainty would have been ended and urgency would have been acted upon, but still the workers are waiting for an answer. Are the Government going to answer? They cannot have it both ways. They are very fond of telling us that. Is this matter urgent or not? If it is, why did they not nationalise these industries last week?

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) in an intervention gave us an interesting insight into the objectivity of the British Press, especially the Glasgow Herald, when he told us that he would be very surprised if we ever found anything in it worth quoting which was favourable to the Labour Party. I have news for him—we have known that for a long time. We knew long before he told us of the bias of the British Press, including the Glasgow Herald.
Anyone who has been in contact with the shipbuilding industry recently, be it with the Shipbuilding Organising Committee, the unions involved in shipbuilding, or the management—whether they are for or against nationalisation—knows that in principle there is complete unanimity about one thing. That is, that a decision must be taken whether the industry is to be nationalised.
I do not expect, and I do not think that anyone would pretend, that on vesting day suddenly the future of British shipbuilding becomes miraculously better and changed. Until, on and after vesting day, the industry will face the same problems as it faces now—problems of capacity and orders. What then, is the rationale behind the way in which the Shipbuilding Organising Committee will operate in


future? The Chairman, Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, and the Chief Executive designate Mr. Graham Day, both say that the rationale of the new Corporation is to provide the healthiest and most viable industry of maximum capacity, which will not go into business on the basis of saying which yards should be shut down and which should keep going. They want to go into the future by drawing up a plan for the whole country on the basis of a secure future for the biggest industry possible. That is very different from saying that there is a guarantee that there will never be any redundancies. I do not think that anyone could give that guarantee for any industry in this country.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain), because members of her Party go about the country giving cast-iron guarantees about what would happen to Scotland if they had their way. If they were more honest and truthful about the difficulties the whole country is facing, people might take them more seriously.
If we do not have nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry, what shall we have in its place? Conservatives say that we have the Industry Act, and that money can be provided for the industry by this means. That is true, but one of the recognised defects of that Act is that it does not allow any planning of the industry in a national sense. If an individual company applies for assistance under the Industry Act and meets the necessary criteria, it gets the money, but there is no structural plan or arrangements for forecasts for the future. The alternative to nationalisation is to allow the industry to drift, to allow shipyards to close down, and to allow shipyard workers to be callously thrown out of work. After three or four years we would have a decimated industry. Only then would we begin to pick up the pieces and plan for the future.
If we are right in our forecasts, in four or five years' time perhaps shipbuilding orders will be accelerating. That would be the wrong time to begin to try to plan the future of the industry. That is why we must plan now so that, when there is an upturn in the world economy, we are able to take advantage of it and can see where to make investment to the best advantage.
The hon. Lady the Member for Dunbartonshire, East said that she had heard

a rumour at the weekend twin a high union source to the effect that there were definite plans to close yards—I think she meant in Scotland. Admittedly this is second-hand, but I can say that I have an assurance from the Organising Committee that it does not intend to approach the business in the way of shutting down yards.
There are many rumours circulating. There is a first-class shipyard in my constituency. The workers there were worried because they had heard a rumour to the effect that it was the intention to concentrate all the new investment and all shipbuilding on the Wear, the Tyne and the Clyde. I took that matter up, and it was denied.
If I may give some advice to the hon. Lady—I hope that she will not think me patronising—she should go and see the Organising Committee. If she does so, I think that she will come away with a totally different idea from that which she now has. I wish that she had gone there earlier. If she had done so, perhaps she would not be advising her party to vote against the Bill tonight.
I believe that the most secure future for our shipbuilding industry lies in nationalising it. I accept, as I believe the workers in the industry accept, that there is no guarantee that there will be no redundancies. However, I do not take the view taken by the Scottish National Party. The hon. Lady said that the main reason she and her hon. Friends will vote against the Government tonight is that we cannot give a guarantee that there will be no redundancies—that not one man will lose his job.
The hon. Lady is prepared to put in jeopardy thousands of jobs in the shipbuilding and aircraft industries because she cannot get that guarantee. If she shares our desire that workers throughout the whole of the United Kingdom—not just in Scotland—should have the maximum opportunity to build a secure future —perhaps not entirely free of redundancies, but certainly free of the total uncertainty from which they have suffered for so long—I believe that she will, even at this late stage, get her party together and persuade her hon. Friends to support the Bill so that we can get it on to the statute book and get things moving, because things have been delayed for far too long.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. David Mudd: The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) began his address by saying that he wanted to talk about the aircraft industry rather than about ship repairing. This is why tonight, almost a year after the Second Reading of the last Bill, we are still dealing in the House with the question of the nationalisation of this industry. Throughout last year's deliberations and throughout today's debate, all too few Members on the Government side have been prepared to discuss intelligently or justify their case for the nationalisation of the ship repairing industry.
The various reassurances and nods that we have had from the Government side must fill the shipyard workers at Falmouth with great apprehension. We were assured that there would be no direction of work within the ship repairing industry in the interests of helping areas of high unemployment. Falmouth has a ship repair yard in a town which has a high local level of unemployment. We were assured that there would be ship repairing on every major estuary. Falmouth, alas, happens not to be a major estuary.
We were given assurances to the effect that Royal Naval work would remain in the Royal Naval dockyards. We are fearful that Royal Fleet auxiliaries and NATO refits will move from the civilian yards in the ship repairing sector into the Royal Naval dockyards.
The whole question of the future of the ship repairing industry seems to depend upon the Government's Freudian fear of the effect of the Japanese in this market. I accept that the Government have a great deal to fear as the potential owner of the ship repair industry. If they take up the glossy brochure of any Japanese ship repair firm, they will find a marked contrast with the publicity material of British yards. The photographs of the Japanese industry will show the swing towards mechanisation, automation and, above all, a slim-line work force. If we pick up the brochure of the average British ship repair or shipbuilding company we find, alas, far too many employees spending far too much time looking at the photographer rather than at the job they should be doing. If there is to be a transfer to Japanese

manpower methods, the Government will have to accept mechanisation, automation and a slim-line work force.
Secondly, the Government must face an important political decision linked with back-up for the shipbuilding industry. One of the great reasons for the Japanese domination of the industry is that it has provided back-up facilities for the ships that it is creating. It is no coincidence that the Kawasaki Corporation now has agency refit agreements in Gothenburg, Hamburg, Rotterdam, Lisbon and Genoa—namely, the terminal or turn-round points of the ships made in the Kawasaki yards.
If we are to have a situation where British Shipbuilders has to compete on equal terms with Kawasaki and the Government will have the political and economic courage to acknowledge here and now that they are prepared to set up outposts for the corporation in Chile, Greece, Taiwan and South Africa. That is the only way in which the interests of the two sections of the British shipping industry—construction and repairing—can be developed. It is the only way in which Britain can begin to compete in the world market, which at present is held, quite rightly, by Japan.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: The last three Labour Members to speak in the debate said that under nationalisation there would be less redundancy and more investment. In the six years of Labour Government from 1964 to 1970 there were 408,000 redundancies in the nationalised industries. There was never a period in which there were more redundancies in the railways, the steel industry and the coal industry.
The steel industry was nationalised nine years ago, and in 1972 I announced the biggest modernisation programme. This Government have been in power for three years and they have deferred the whole of that investment programme for those three years. That is a reflection on the reality of nationalisation.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill and I feel rather like a stranger arriving on a cratered battlefield potted with the


verbal ammunition that has been fired by both sides.
I do not have the experience of some of my right hon. Friends of the aviation and shipbuilding industries. Perhaps that is a personal advantage because the arguments that have been rehearsed to me at least had a certain freshness, although I can assure the House that I do not intend to go over the arguments at great length.
I want to make one passing reference to the interest that my constituency has in the Bill. Kingston was the place where the original firm of Hawkers was first founded. It is today the headquarters of Hawker Siddeley Aviation Limited. I think that the House will understand that not only Conservative politicians but many people in my constituency will regret the passing of the identity of Hawker Siddeley into the anonymity of the nationalised corporation.
It has been said that the Bill deals with two, three and possibly four industries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has said, it is an unmistakable fact that the aircraft industry has been extremely successful. It is the largest and most comprehensive aircraft industry outside the United States. It exports half of its turnover.
If every industry exported half its turnover, we should have no problems. … That is truly remarkable growth.
The House may be interested to hear that those words are not mine, but those of the Secretary of State for Energy who recognised the tremendous achievements of the British Aviation industry.
It seems astonishing—almost unbelievable—that people can say "The industry's contribution in the past has been excellent. If every other industry had done as well, we would have no problems. If we nationalise it, it will do even better. It will do brilliantly." If people believe that, they will believe anything.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to the industry's contribution to the community. We are told that if we nationalise an industry, in some mysterious way it makes a contribution to the community. I have always thought that the best contribution that an industry can make to the community is to pay corporation tax on its profits.

The astonishing fact is that the aviation industry has paid more money to the Treasury by way of taxes on its profits than the whole of the nationalised industries during their entire existence. Why, when we have economic and industrial problems, should we want to destroy a successful and outstanding industry? Why should we throw away the best?
The shipbuilding industry presents a very different picture. It has many problems. It is significant that, although we have two industries with contrasting problems, the Government's answer is always the same—to nationalise regardless of the problems.
The British shipbuilding industry's share of world markets has declined as it has with other traditional industries in this country. If the industry had been nationalised, I do not believe that that could have prevented or reversed that decline.
There is the problem of over capacity in shipbuilding all over the world. There is the problem of new low-cost producers —the Brazilians, the Japanese and the Koreans—building ships at prices with which it is extremely difficult for us to compete. Nationalisation will not help us to overcome the threat of competition from those countries.
There are successful firms in some parts of our shipbuilding industry. Naval shipbuilding yards have increased employment in recent years. They have provided the only real jobs which count—jobs provided not by subsidies but by profitable companies selling goods which world markets want to buy.
The Secretary of State said that ship repairing had declined. It has declined, as it has done throughout Western Europe. However, I should make the point that we increased our share of the European market during the period of decline.
We firmly believe that ship repairing is totally unsuited to nationalisation. The industry consists in many cases of small companies. Some yards, which are to be nationalised under this legislation, employ fewer than 100 people, others even fewer. It is almost as though, because a Government were going to nationalise the motor car industry, they therefore felt that they had to nationalise the garages as well.
Ship repairing is an industry which, above all, depends on speed and performance. It is a service industry. It is totally unsuited to nationalisation. Above all, ship repairers cannot treat their customers with the same contempt as the GPO and the electricity boards appear to treat theirs.
I hesitate to touch on the vexed subject of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. Not having been a member of the Standing Committee. I know that the mere mention of that name is likely to arouse considerable controversy and that the Minister of State is likely to jump up. So I shall confine myself to one circumspect comment. Whatever else we may think about Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, looking at that company's industrial relations and record of worker participation—I speak as someone who is sceptical of worker participation—we must admit that the company is innovative, experimental and unusual. The tragedy of nationalisation is that experimentation and innovation of that kind will be stamped out.
The argument presented by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) was that these industries have been the recipients of large amounts of public money. In the case of both industries one has to recognise that a large part of the money has gone to cover special situations. In the shipbuilding industry 70 per cent. of the money has gone to yards that are already within the public sector.
In the aircraft industry a large proportion of the money has gone into Concorde and the RB-211 projects which the Government encouraged the private sector to undertake. It is hardly fair for the Government to present projects which the industry may not want to undertake, to pressurise and encourage the industry to undertake them, and then suddenly, in the middle, to turn round and say "We are paying for this and therefore we should own the industries."
The civil side of aviation has had little Government aid outside the two projects that I mentioned. Hawker Siddeley has received little aid. If the argument is based on aid for civil projects there is no case at all for Hawker Siddeley being included in the Bill.
The other argument is that the Government are the biggest customer and should therefore own the industries. That is not true for the aviation industry. The Government are not the biggest customer. The argument that because someone goes into a shop and pays a proper price for something, he must own the shop would lead, in this case, to the British aviation industry being owned by a lot of foreigners. It seems to me curious to argue that because one buys something one should own the industry which produces it. The Government are the biggest buyers of medical equipment, bricks, cement, timber and paper—above all, paper. Are they proposing to nationalise those industries?
The real argument is the reverse. If the Government want to get value when putting money into a project, they are more likely to achieve that if the industry concerned is privately owned and competitive. We know that there is elaborate machinery at the Departments of Defence and Industry, and there is the Public Accounts Committee. These bodies can do their work best at arm's length from private industry. As the Public Accounts Committee found, it can be difficult to delve into the inner workings of some of the nationalised industries. If we want value for Government money, let us keep these industries private.
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) argued that the industries should be nationalised because of the uncertainty within them. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) said, the Government have been extraordinarily leisurely in their progress over the Bill. They introduced it in 1974 but did not proceed. Last Session there was a long gap between the Bill's introduction and the Second Reading.
It is an extraordinary argument to say that a Government can introduce a bad Bill, create a lot of uncertainty and then turn round and say, "We must have this Bill quickly to end the uncertainty we have caused".
Apart from the situation in each particular industry, one must pay attention to the implications for the economy as a whole of expanding the public sector. The performance of State industries has varied from the mediocre to the disastrous.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) said, nationalised industries have not provided secure jobs. Often they have delayed the inevitable and increased job losses. In the end redundancies have come. It is an illusion that nationalisation prevents job losses.
By enlarging the public sector we are enlarging that area of the economy which is subject to political pressure and interference and which will drag an otherwise admirable Civil Service into managerial and entrepreneurial decisions for which it is totally unsuited.
Nationalisation is not wanted by the public. Some workers may want it, because they are under the mistaken impression that it will give them job security. They will soon find out the bitter truth, which is that the Bill will turn thriving industries into bureaucratic bumbledoms. Some hon. Members on the Government Benches may think that that is a small price to pay for the unity of the Labour Party. It may be a small price if they place small value on their own consciences.
Once again the interests of the Labour Party are being placed before those of this country. For that reason, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion tonight.

11.36 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): The industrial case for taking these industries into public ownership has been compellingly put forward in the debate by my hon. Friends, just as it has been put forward consistently during the past year, since the Bill originally had its Second Reading on 2nd December last. Since then, while we have been preparing for nationalisation, we have been well served by the two Organising Committees. It is our sincere hope that both these Committees will carry on their excellent work.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) pay tribute to Sir Anthony Griffin and his Organising Committee, and I would link with that the excellent work done by my noble Friend Lord Beswick for British Aerospace.
My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen asked two important questions. The first

was about the role of the specialist warship builders. I can tell my hon. Friend that we have made it clear that the Ministry of Defence will continue its policy of increasingly concentrating warship orders with the three specialist warship builders—Vosper Thorneycroft, Yarrow and Vickers, although the requirements of the Navy may mean that from time to time warship orders will be placed with other shipbuilders, as I told the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter).
My hon. Friend also asked about the future of the HS146 project. I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont)—a Member of Parliament, as he told us, for an area in which a Hawker Siddeley factory is situated—brought out the extraordinary canard that Hawker Siddeleyand BAC, too did not rely on Government money for its civilian projects, because the HS146, about which my hon. Friend asked, would be a dead project today if the Government had not placed the holding contract. Last year Hawker Siddeley came to us and told us that it would have to kill that project unless the Government would fund it 100 per cent.
The hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) is the last person to talk about employment prospects in his constituency because he knows that if, last July, I had not announced a £3 million Government underwriting of five more BAC 111s about 1,000 redundancies would have taken place since that date at BAC Wavertree. So hon. Members on the Opposition Benches should not talk about the independence of the civil air craft industry from Government money.
The case for public ownership has been supported overwhelmingly by the representatives of the workers in the aircraft, shipbuilding and ship repairing industries, and during the past few days we have been inundated by demands from the workers' representatives that this Bill should be urgently enacted. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) has given me a letter from the workers' representatives at Hawker Siddeley Dynamics at Lostock. That far from revolutionary publication Lloyds List yesterday devoted much of its front page to such demands. Workers' representatives on Tyneside, Merseyside and


Clydeside—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) has already referred to some of the remarks of Mr. James Ramsey, the boilermakers' Clyde delegate. I think that Lloyds List was one of the newspapers that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) told us that we should not believe. He says that we must not believe The Times or the Glasgow Herald—advice that we shall take to heart.

Mr. Cyril Smith: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: I know what the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene about, and I shall come to that.
Mr. James Ramsey, the boilermakers' Clyde delegate-[Interruption.] I am coming to Austin and Pickersgill. Mr. James Ramsey, the boilermakers' Clyde delegate, was reported in Lloyds List yesterday as saying
There is a feeling of depression among the workers that such action should be taken by the House of Lords and the SNP. We need to educate the SNP or kick them out next time.
That is a workers' representative from the Clyde.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was quoted by his hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) as having paid a visit to Austin and Pickersgill at Sunderland. He has done it rather belatedly. I paid a visit rather earlier this year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) are far better representatives of the views of workers in the Sunderland shipyards than the hon. Member for Rochdale after a butterfly visit.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. Is he aware that yesterday morning I met all of the shop stewards at Austin and Pickersgill, alone, in the works canteen there? The shop stewards of that company told me that neither of their Members of Parliament had asked them for their views on the Bill, and, furthermore, that they, as shop stewards—30 of them were present—were totally opposed to the Bill.

Mr. Kaufman: I am not at all surprised that the hon. Gentleman chose the canteen in which to meet the workers. My right hon. and hon. Friends the two Members for Sunderland have had regular meetings with the workers there. I have attended some of them myself. While the hon. Member for Colne Valley was showing his lack of interest in the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill by his consistent absenteeism from the Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North was a regular attender and spokesman for his constituents.

Mr. Frederick Willey: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) went to my constituency without the courtesy of telling me that he was going there. I can tell him quite brutally that what he has said is an absolute lie.

Hon. Members: Oh !

Mr. Cyril Smith: rose—

Mr. Norman Tebbit: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know what has been bandied about across the Chamber. I was not able to hear because of the noise.

Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) accuses me of telling a deliberate lie. On my word of honour. I have told the truth. The shop stewards may have wrongly informed me. I am not saying that they have wrongly informed me but that they may have done so. However, the statement that I have made to the House tonight is absolutely true. The shop stewards told me that neither of the Members for Sunderland had ever asked for their views.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the right hon. Member for Sunderland. North (Mr. Willey) accused the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) of telling a lie, I must ask him to withdraw that.

Mr. Willey: I shall repeat what I said, namely, that what the hon. Gentleman. said was a lie.

Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have heard the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) not only call the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North to withdraw the word "lie".

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Wiley: Before I do so I would just say this to the hon. Gentleman. He says that what he was told may be a lie. I am saying that what he has stated in the House is a lie.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw that.

Mr. Willey: If the hon. Gentleman believes that this is a reflection on him personally, of course I shall withdraw the word, and say that I give him notice that I intend to raise this matter when we discuss the Bill further next week.

Mr. Kaufman: We have been talking about the industrial case for nationalising this industry, and the case has been made repeatedly, but only once in the past year has the Tory Party put forward any alternative policy. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in his regular tirades, which we shall in future miss—very thankfully—did not once tell the House how his party would preserve and encourage a merchant shipping and civil aircraft industry.

Mr. Burden: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: I shall not give way, because the House wants to come to a decision.
As I was saying, the hon. Member for Henley has not once told the House how the Tory Party would preserve and encourage a merchant shipping and civil aircraft industry in this country, and the Marine Week, speaking of the hon. Gentleman, described him as having
patently little knowledge of, and sympathy for, what the industry really required (even if it was not nationalisation).

Mr. Burden: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: No.
The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), for all his acknowledged originality of thought, was unable today

to be more forthcoming, but at least in putting forward no policy whatever he achieved in a fortnight what it took his hon. Friend the Member for Henley a year to do. The hon. Member for Oswestry fell below his usual standards in what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire). What the hon. Gentleman said did him no credit and disappointed many hon. Members. He spoke about my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone being persuaded to vote for this Bill, but he should be aware of the integrity with which my hon. Friend has resisted the corrupt attempts to get him to vote against the Bill.
The only Tory spokesman who has made any positive proposal on this matter is Lord Carrington. Addressing the massed shipyard workers of the Wessex Area Young Conservatives in that industrial citadel the Kelvin Hotel, Bournemouth, on Saturday 20th November, he said that the Government
… can help both the shipbuilding and aircraft industries in exactly the same way as they have shelled out hundreds of millions of pounds to bolster up British Leyland.
That, if they have one at all, is the Tory Party policy for aircraft, shipbuilding and ship repairing. The party which believes in massive public expenditure cuts proposes vast public subsidies to private enterprise—if one can call it enterprise—with no accountability whatever. That Tory proposal makes to the hilt the case for nationalisation as unanswerably as any argument advanced from this side.
If the Conservatives so passionately oppose the Bill without any true alternative of their own, we must—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Reading.

Mr. Kaufman: Yes, but at least my speech was not written for me by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire.
We must ask why it is that not only the Tory Party but the whole of the establishment in this country have strained every nerve and exerted every ounce of misplaced ingenuity to defeat the Bill. No one could call it a revolutionary Bill. By any standards it is a mild one. Some—but not I—have called it a milk and water Bill. Yet it has been opposed with a passionate and unscrupulous malevolence unparalleled in any recent


political controversy. The reason is clear —because the Bill makes an attempt, and a determined attempt, to transfer economic decision-making from a small and unrepresentative minority to the workers in these industries and to the nation as a whole.
Such a transfer, on however limited a scale, is truly repugnant to those who have grown so used to running this country for their own benefit that they will stop at nothing to prevent it. It is as simple as what we promised in our manifesto, to bring about
… a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power in favour of working people and their families.

Mr. Patrick Corniack: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Kaufman: Those who have long regarded industry in this country as their own private power base cannot abide it.
I give them this warning, and I offer it in particular to the House of Lords. Should the Bill be carried in this House and go to the other place for consideration, they have it in their power not only to delay the Bill, and in doing so to damage these industries irreparably. They also have it in their power to damage irreparably the democratic process itself.
For 70 years the Labour Party has successfully persuaded those who support it that economic, industrial and political change can be achieved by peaceful consent, through the democratic process. That is and will remain our passionate conviction. But our powers of persuasion can

carry conviction only if change can indeed be achieved by consent through the parliamentary process.

If Parliament is seen to fail to provide such change, as endorsed by the nation in general elections, then those twisted and dangerous people outside Parliament, outside the main parties and outside the democratic process will have had handed to them the weapon they are seeking—the weapon which will enable them to tell the people of this country that change cannot be achieved by consent and through Parliament and that therefore they must resort to other and less savoury processes.

That is the fire with which the Tory Party is playing. That is the box of matches that the House of Lords will have in its hands. If that box of matches were to consume the House of Lords itself, not everybody would be sorry. Our democracy, though powerful and enduring, is not so strong that it can survive those who would be able to say that repeatedly-expressed decisions of the House of Commons to enact laws do not ensure that laws reach the statute book.

This debate is, of course, about this extremely important Bill. I very much trust that this House will support its Second Reading tonight. But because of the actions of the Tory Party, because of unscrupulous outside interests and because of the irresponsibility of the House of Lords, it has also become a debate about the very basis of our democracy. For that reason, too, I ask the House to support the Government in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 279.

Division No. 7.
AYES
[11.56 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bishop, E. S.
Campbell, Ian


Allaun, Frank
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Donald
Boardman, H.
Cant, R. B.


Archer, Peter
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Carmichael, Neil


Armstrong. Ernest
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Carter, Ray


Ashley, Jack
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cartwright, John


Ashlon, Joe
Bradley, Tom
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Clemitson, Ivor


Atkinson, Norman
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Cohen, Stanley


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Coleman, Donald


Bates, Alf
Buchan, Norman
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen


Bean, R. E.
Buchanan, Richard
Concannon, J. D.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Conlan, Bernard


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Bidwell, Sydney
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Corbett, Robin




Cowens, Harry
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
John, Brynmor
Radice, Giles


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crowder, F. P
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, Join (Paisley)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Judd, Frank
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Dr. J. (Whiteh)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davidson, Arthur
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamble, David
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Deakins, Eric
Lamborn, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lomond, James
Ryman, John


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sandelson, Neville


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Sedgemore, Brian


Doig, Peter
Lee, John
Selby, Harry


Dormand, J. D.
Lester, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dunn, James A.
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dunnett, Jack
Litterick, Tom
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Eadie, Alex
Loyden, Eddie
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Edge, Geoff
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Siliars, James


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Silverman, Julius


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


English, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Small, William


Ennals, David
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McElhone, Frank
Snape, Peter


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, John (Newton)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Spriggs, Lestle


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Stoddart, David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Stott, Roger


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Strang, Gavin


Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Magee, Bryan
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Swain, Thomas


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ford, Ben
Mellalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marquand, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tierney, Sydney


Freeson, Reginald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tinn, James


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tomlinson, John


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tomney, Frank


George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael
Torney, Tom


Gilbert, Dr John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Golding, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dennis V)


Gould, Bryan
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Graham, Ted
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William
Ward, Michael


Grant, John (Islington C)
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, David


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weetch, Ken


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Weitzman, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Moyle, Roland
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
White, James (Pollok)


Hatton, Frank
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Whitlock, William


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Newens, Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Noble, Mike
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson(Alexander (Hamilton)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ovenden, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Huckfield, Les
Owen, Et Hon Dr David
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Palmer, Arthur
Woodall, Alec


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, George
Woof, Robert


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Parker, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Parry, Robert
Young, David Bolton E)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Pendry, Tom



Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Perry, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Janner, Greville
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Prescott, John
Mr. A.W. Stallard.



Price, C. (Lewisham W)








NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Alison, Michael
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman


Arnold, Tom
Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Awdry, Daniel
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Molyneaux, James


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Monro, Hector


Baker, Kenneth
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Montgomery, Fergus


Banks, Robert
Gray, Hamish
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Beith, A. J.
Griffiths, Eldon
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bell, Ronald
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morgan, Geraint


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Grist, Ian
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Banyon, W
Grylls, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hall, Sir John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Biffen, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mudd, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Blaker, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Body, Richard
Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Newton, Tony


Bottomley, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Normanton, Tom


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Havers, Sir Michael
Nott, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley


Bradford, Rev Robert
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Braine, Sir Bernard
Henderson, Douglas
Osborn, John


Brittan, Leon
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard (Workington)


Brotherton, Michael
Higgins, Terence L.
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hodgson, Robin
Pardoe, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hooson, Emlyn
Pattie, Geoffrey


Budgen, Nick
Hordern, Peter
Penhaligon, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Burden, F. A.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pink, R. Bonner


Carlisle, Mark
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Carson, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hurd, Douglas
Prior, Rt Hon James


Churchill, W. S.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Raison, Timothy


Clark, William (Croydon S)
James, David
Rathbone, Tim


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cockcroft, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cope, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Reid, George


Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Corrie, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Tim (Mid_Sussex)


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Crawford, Douglas
Kilfedder, James
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Kimball, Marcus
Rifkind, Malcolm


Crowder, F. P.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knufsford)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kirk, Sir Peter
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Drayson, Burnaby
Knox, David
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lamont, Norman
Royle, Sir Anthony


Dunlop, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sainsbury, Tim


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Elliott, Sir William
Lawson, Nigel
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Colin


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Lloyd, Ian
Shersby, Michael


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John
Silvester, Fred


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sims, Roger


Fairgrieve, Russell
McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fell, Anthony
McCusker, H.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Nell
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spence, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Madel, David
Sproat, Iain


Fox, Marcus
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stainton, Keith


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Marten, Nell
Stanbrook, Ivor


Freud, Clement
Mates, Michael
Stanley, John


Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maude, Angus
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Gardiner, George (Relgate)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, John


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mayhew, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Peter







Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wakeham, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Tebbit, Norman
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Thompson, George
Wall, Patrick
Young. Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Walters, Dennis
Younger, Hon George


Townsend, Cyril D.
Watt, Hamish



Trotter, Neville
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wells, John
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Welsh, Andrew
Mr Michael Roberts.


Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to the Order this day.

Committee this day.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of two bodies corporate to be called British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required for making payments to either of them by way of public dividend capital and the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required to enable the Secretary of State to make loans to either of them, subject to the following limits—

(a) the aggregate of—

(i) the amounts for the time being outstanding, otherwise than by way of interest, in respect of money borrowed by British Aerospace and each of its wholly owned subsidiaries, other than money borrowed on excluded loans, and not including commencing capital, and
(ii) the sums paid to British Aerospace by way of public dividend capital, shall not exceed £250 million;

(b) the aggregate of—

(i) the amounts for the time being outstanding, otherwise than by way of interest, in respect of money borrowed by British Shipbuilders and each of its wholly owned subsidiaries, other than money borrowed on excluded loans, and not including commencing capital; and
(ii) the sums paid to British Shipbuilders by way of public dividend capital, shall not exceed £300 million;


(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required to fulfil guarantees given by the Treasury in respect of loans to British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders;
(3) the charge on the National Loans Fund, with recourse to the Consolidated

Fund, of the principal of and interest on government stock issued by way of compensation in accordance with provisions of the said Act of the present Session and the issue out of the National Loans Fund of any sums necessary to meet expenses incurred in connection with the issue or repayment of any such government stock and payments of interest on amounts of compensation prior to the issue of such stocks;
(4) the payment out of money provided by Parliament, subject to the conditions specified in the said Act of the present Session, of any sums other than public dividend capital required by the Secretary of State for making payments to British Aerospace or any of its wholly owned subsidiaries for the purpose of promoting the design, development or production of civil aircraft, subject to the limit that the aggregate of the sums so paid less any sums received by the Secretary of State (otherwise than by way of interest on money lent) in pursuance of the terms and conditions on which any such payment was made shall not at any time exceed £50 million;
(5) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) remuneration allowances and expenses to any individual appointed in pursuance of the said Act as a stockholders' representative;
(b) remuneration and allowances to members and officers of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal established under the said Act of the present Session and other expenses of that tribunal; and
(c) any administrative expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to the said Act;

(6) the payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund of any sums falling to be so paid by virtue of the said Act;
and for the purpose of this Resolution—

(a) a loan is an excluded loan in relation to either of the bodies corporate established by the said Act of the present Session if—

(i) it consists of money borrowed by one of its wholly owned subsidiaries either from that body or from another of that body's wholly owned subsidiaries or of money borrowed by that body from any of its wholly owned subsidiaries; or
(ii) it is a loan under section 1 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 or a loan in respect of which payments are authorised


under paragraph (4) above, or a loan under section 8 of the Industrial Expansion Act 1969 or section 7 or section 8 of the Industry Act 1972; or
(iii) it is a loan guaranteed under section 10 of that Act; or
(iv) the purpose of the loan is to pay off the whole or any part of that body's commencing debt; or
(v) the purpose of the loan is to pay off a previous loan which was itself an excluded loan by virtue of sub-paragraph (iv) above of this sub-paragraph;

(b) 'commencing capital', in relation to British Aerospace or British Shipbuilders, means such amount as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine under the said Act of the present Session;
(c) 'commencing debt' means that part of the commencing capital which is not to be treated for the purposes of the Act as public dividend capital.—[Mr. Varley.]

12.14 a.m.

Mr. Michael Grylls: I make no apology except to my hon. Friends for speaking at this late hour. I think that the House is fully entitled to an explanation from the Financial Secretary about the amount of money that has been spent by the Organising Committees for British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders. I put down a Question on this two days ago and the Answer was £393,000—nearly £400,000 in 364 days. That is pretty fast spending even by this Government. It is about £1,000 a day, spent by the Organising Committees, since the Second Reading debate.
We are in a very special position because that was during the last Session and the Bill fell. I think we are entitled to ask where that money will come from. The Bill is now proceeding in this Session of Parliament, and most Conservatives believe that sooner or later the Bill will fall again, thanks to the continuing opposition of the House of Lords, of Lord Shinwell and the Cross-Bench peers. If that happens, where will the money come from? The House is entitled to ask on what authority the money has been spent. I understand that when industries are nationalised, the Organising Committees have no authority to spend this money. I wish that the Secretary of State would pay attention to what I am saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I appeal to right hon.

and hon. Members to keep their conversations very low. I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) is saying.

Mr. Grylls: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We want to conclude this debate quickly and the more the Secretary of State listens to what I have to say, the quicker we can dispose of the resolution.
With what authority have Ministers encouraged the committees to spend this money? They may be putting the accounting officer in the Department of Industry in an embarrassing position. About £400,000 has been spent and the Comptroller and Auditor-General may have to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to explain on what authority it has been spent. This is not a question of petty cash. We know that the petty cash till at the Department of Industry is big, but it does not extend to sums of this size being paid without the authority of Parliament.
It is an intriguing situation and the House is entitled to ask, even at this late hour, how the money has been spent. I seek information from the Financial Secretary. The Secretary of State has washed his hands of the matter. He is not even listening. He and his fellow Ministers are a disgrace to Parliament. My hon. Friends and I may speak from the Opposition Benches, but we are as entitled as anyone else to ask about public expenditure.

Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The whole House except the Secretary of State and one of the newly-appointed members of the Government is listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls). The Ministers are carrying on a conversation and utterly disregarding my hon. Friend who has specifically been directing his remarks, through you, to the Secretary of State. Is the right hon. Gentleman's action not a great discourtesy to the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair has enough responsibilities without directing hon. Members to pay attention to what is being said or to conduct their conversations quietly.

Mr. Grylls: I take the point of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Sir D. Renton).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the Secretary of State is now probably deliberately carrying on with his conversation. I hope that he is not doing so in order to be disrespectful to what the Chair has just said.

Mr. Grylls: Ministers have the opportunity to listen. Let the country judge them for not listening. They do not care twopence for the fact that tax-payers' money is being thrown away in this disgraceful fashion.
The Financial Secretary has some responsibility in this matter. He may be listening, though it does not look as if he is. However, he is a courteous Minister and I shall give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he is listening.
Has the money been spent on first-class travel, cigars and wine for the committees? I do not know and we ought to know. Has it been spent in their boardrooms-if they have boardrooms? We have not been told. Has it been spent in their offices? Judging by their addresses, the committees are not pigging it. The committee for the aircraft industry is in Victoria Street and the other committee is at 12–18 Grosvenor Gardens, a respectable and rather expensive address which it shares with the National Enterprise Board. If the members of the committee are nesting in Lord Ryder's office, how much rent are they paying him? We do not know that, but we do know that a great deal of this money is being spent on salaries. Certainly these salaries are not chicken feed.
The Chairman, Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, is receiving £23,300 a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] There is a lot more to come. The Chief Executive-designate, Mr. J. Graham Day, a distinguished Canadian business man I presume, is being paid £19,300. His situation is more serious, because we are told that he is on the verge of resigning. He said on Saturday in the Press:
Things are very difficult, and I am thinking what my position is. I am sure that applies to everyone on the Organising Committee.
He went on to say how unhappy he was about the situation.

Mr. Peter Rost: Perhaps the Secretary of State would explain what these people are doing to earn these salaries. One

assumes that the businesses have not been nationalised yet.

Mr. Grylls: That is a very positive point. However, I can report on what one of these generals has been doing—Lord Beswick, the Chairman of the Organising Committee of the British Aerospace Corporation, who is paid the modest salary of £23,000 a year. He, at least, has been partially involved in sitting on the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords earlier this year on the Lord Ampthill paternity case. Therefore he has been well employed. I do not know whether he drew his salary while he was sitting on that case. It does seem rather a strange occupation.
I can report on one other general—Mr. Leslie Buck, a distinguished trade unionist, who is President of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, and General Secretary of the National Union of Sheet Metal Workers, Coppersmiths, Heating and Domestic Engineers. He is a busy man, but there has been no incomes policy for him. He has had £16,000 a year since the Organising Committee came into being, so he has not been pigging it either.
If, as we believe, this Bill falls again, are these gentlemen getting compensation? What are the terms of their service agreements, and what will be the cost to the taxpayers of paying them off when they are no longer wanted to run corporations which are no longer there? The House and the country are entitled to know. It is obvious that the £400,000 of expenditure up to 22nd November 1976—the date of the Answer to my Parliamentary Question—is only the tip of the iceberg. When this Bill finally falls there will be a lot of compensation to pay. There is no doubt that there has been a gross misuse of this amount of money in the past 12 months. To coin a phrase of the Secretary of State for the Environment, it is a gross act of folly to spend this sort of money.
If we do not get more detailed anwers tonight on how the money is being spent and the commitment of the taxpayers' money in the future, we should firmly vote against this Money Resolution because it is one more example of this spendthrift Government.

12.24 a.m.

Mr. John Nott: I had hoped to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide against the Money Resolution immediately. It seeks approval for very large sums of money. However, as Labour Members do not seem to take the simple item of expenditure of £400,000 seriously, I think I should, instead, fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) and continue to press the point that he has brought to the attention of the House.
What my hon. Friend is complaining about is that nearly £400,000 has been spent on an Organising Committee that so far has nothing to organise. This is a proper matter for the House on a Money Resolution of this kind. Of course we can accept—my hon. Friend will agree with me—that the Organising Committee has had a function to pursue a little purposeful planning, but it has had no physical function to perform other than some relaxed thinking while the Bill has been proceeding through Parliament. It has had the duty of indulging in some dining, wining and entertaining of visitors from overseas who might be interested in our industry, but it is hard to believe that in these austere times this thinking, dining and entertaining can have added up to £393,675 in just one calendar year.
I hope that the House will not carefully that, in reply to my hon. Friend's question, the answer was not that the amount was, say, £350,000 or £395,000. The answer was that the actual expenditure was £393,675, which means that someone in the public sector, possibly someone in the Treasury, is watching, counting and adding up precisely what the Organising Committee has been spending.
I know that my hon. Friend would not be so impertinent as to inquire into the petty cash and entertaining expenses of these highly paid, albeit elderly, gentlemen who are now chairmen of these organising bodies—Lord Beswick and Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin.
But we in the House have an obligation to show that we are ever vigilant about expenses in the nationalised industries now that Lord Short is taking over the chairmanship of Cable and Wireless and Lord Balogh has, at the age of 70,

moved to the British National Oil Corporation.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is my hon. Friend right in saying that the former Lord President of the Council has now been sent to another place?

Mr. Nott: I am not sure whether he has actually arrived there yet, but clearly if his arrival there will enable him to draw this sum of money—nearly £400,000 —for presiding over a nationalised industry, or indeed an Organising Committee without anything yet to organise, we wish to ask the same questions in relation to the future Lord Short as we now ask in relation to Lord Beswick.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. Edward Short has not been made a peer because it is not entirely certain that the Government can rely upon him to support this measure like all the other measures?

Mr. Nott: Possibly, like others of his friends, Mr. Short will find the remuneration as Chairman of Cable and Wireless rather more satisfying than the attendance allowance in the House of Lords and for that reason, and perhaps other reasons, he is quite satisfied with the post he has received.
It is possible that there is a simple explanation for this sum, but I should like the Financial Secretary to say precisely where this sum of money will fall. First, when I knew that this subject would arise I had a brief look at the relevant Estimates and Supplementary Estimates to see to what extent this expenditure was exceeding the provision which had been made for it, but no Estimate exists. I understand from an answer given by the Secretary of State for Industry that this expenditure of £393,675 is to fall directly on the Contingency Reserve, to be reimbursed subsequently if the corporations are established.
This is quite interesting because it seems to be in conflict with Clauses 14 and 15, which make it clear that the capital of these industries shall amount merely to the compensation amounts being paid out for the underlying industries. But more than that, the Contingency Fund has never been intended to


provide these sums for Organising Committees that have been delayed in performing their functions as a result of legislation taking rather longer than was anticipated in the House of Commons.
I ask the Minister to provide information on the following items. First, what is the breakdown of the expenditure of £393,000? How has it arisen? It cannot have arisen solely on Lord Beswick's salary of £23,000 and on the salary of the admiral. It must have arisen to a large extent by taking extremely expensive premises. In last Sunday's Press the Chief Executive of British Shipbuilders—I quote from what he is alleged to have said—appears to have said:
When the Bill fell in Parliament, the appointments technically lapsed, though there is, of course, an ongoing employment relationship,
That was Mr. Day, who is the Chief Executive of British Shipbuilders. I understand that he is receiving nearly £20,000 a year. Have the appointments lapsed, or are they still in being?
Are the expenses to be transferred from the Contingency Fund, which we have always understood from the Chancellor is to be examined in detail by the Cabinet? We understood that that was one of the new rules applying to the Contingency Fund but when will the transfer be made from the Contingency Fund to the capital of these industries? Under Clauses 14 and 15 it is not clear how these debts, which have been incurred outside the underlying companies which are being acquired can be transferred to the industries.
Finally, may we know what will happen to this sum if the Bill were to fall in another place? Would it then appear on a departmental Vote—namely, the Vote of the Department of Industry? Perhaps the Minister will answer those questions. They are serious questions that relate to the financial procedures of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West has raised a small but interesting point on a significant sum incurred by a body that as far as we know has not been statutorily established, a body that is to organise something that does not yet exist. These are all matters of importance to the House, even though it is late at night.

12.34 a.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: There is one small point on which I should like the Minister's help. I make it plain at the outset that I am not particularly in the game of knocking those who have the job of running a nationalised industry, which is an extraordinary difficult job to do. Many of them are presently considerably underpaid for the responsibilities that they take. Many of them undertake difficult jobs in a manner that is quite exemplary, especially considering some of the stick that they get for the jobs that they attempt to do.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: From the hon. Member's side—

Mr. Tebbit: From both sides. We have heard some criticism of Sir Frank Mcfadzean recently that has been totally unjustified.
The point is that £400,000 has been expended on the Organising Committees. It would appear that a substantial amount of it must have been spent on salaries. As I look at the list of those who have been appointed to posts on the Organising Committees I notice that most of them are already in employment elsewhere. Certainly Lord Beswick is not in that position. I do not think that there is anyone else who could be found to employ him these days, but most of the others have other jobs.
The intriguing point is that the Government's view is that, under the social contract, in assessing whether a person's salary is limited by the £8,500-a-year cut-off from any further increases in emoluments, one should aggregate the total of his salaries from all employment. That makes the matter much more interesting.
For example, as I look at the composition of the Organising Committees for British Aerospace I find Lord Beswick, who has no other job; Mr. Allen Greenwood, the Chairman of the British Aircraft Corporation; Mr. George Jefferson, the Chairman and Managing Director of the Guided Weapons Division of BAC; Mr. Eric Rubythorn, the General Manager of Hawker-Siddeley Aviation; Mr. John Stamper, the Technical Director of Hawker-Siddeley; Mr. Leslie Buck, the President of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions; and


Dr. Austin Pearee, the Chairman of Esso Petroleum. [HON. MEMBERS: "All good men."] I am not disputing their merit. However, it is unlikely that any one of them is paid very far under the £8,500 limit. So where has the money been expended?
I hope that the Minister will tell us how much of the money has gone on salaries for members of the Organising Committee. It may be that it was all fair and above board. It is to be expected that it was. But it would not be right if those who have to abide by the pay limits of the social contract were left with any doubt in their minds about whether everybody else was abiding by them, too. The Minister should readily and easily be able to tell us how much of the £390,000 has been expended on the salaries of the members of the Organising Committee.

12.38 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I hope that the House will understand that I am not opposed to retired admirals receiving excellent salaries which they thoroughly deserve. I want the Minister to answer one important question when he replies to the debate. Why did he not make honest men of these retired admirals and others? Why did not the Government take the 95 per cent. of the loaf in their grasp and then introduce a short, sharp Bill to add ship repairing afterwards? Was it because they knew that trouble was coming in the shipbuilding industry and they wanted to pin the fault for that on the Opposition? [Interruption.] Does the Minister wish to say anything? Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought that I heard the Minister say "Why the bloody hell" something or other that I did not catch.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman anticipated my rising to ask what that has to do with the motion before the House.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: That is exactly what I want to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the answer: nothing whatsoever.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Perhaps the Minister will tell the House and the

country why the Government did not take the 95 per cent. of the Bill and add the bit about ship repairing afterwards. That is what we want to know.

12.39 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): I have listened carefully to the contributions which have been made in this short debate. I do not think that any of them have done anybody any credit. I refer particularly to the speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) who, as far as I can recollect, until now has not made any contribution during the whole of the debates on the Bill. For him to come in at this late stage and make a point which has been carefully rehearsed several times today displays a contempt not only of the House, but of his own party.
Tonight we have heard some of the most squalid personal attacks and insinuations that we have heard in the Chamber for a long time. Those attacks have come particularly from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). I hope that some of the people whom he has attacked and who are in no position to answer back will take careful note of the squalid and personal way in which he has made his remarks tonight.
The Secretary of State has already paid tribute to the excellent and hard work being done by both Organising Committees. That is particularly relevant

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Huckfield: I shall not give way because the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), who never attends the debate, is always intervening.
Those who have been involved in the Bill throughout its various stages, unlike those hon. Members who have contributed tonight, know that both the Organising Committee for British Shipbuilders and the Organising Committee for British Aerospace have been undertaking a long, detailed and intensive series of studies on the future of both industries. Hon. Members may not know that the Organising Committee for British Shipbuilders has personally visited nearly every shipyard in the country. The


Organising Committee for British Aerospace has taken part in a number of initiatives with our possible collaborative partners in future projects. Those who have met members of the committees and those who have participated in discussions can testify to the hard and unstinting work done by members of the Organising Committees.
If hon. Members want to know where some of the money has gone, I can tell them that it has gone in paying the salaries of members of the committees and of small staffs, and in paying rent. The pity of it is that hon. Member have tonight attacked members of the Organising Committees some of whom have given their services free.
Considering that the committees represent the best way of saving the two industries and the best way of saving hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the country, the Opposition should be praising instead of attacking them for their work.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Mr. Michael Marshall (Arundel): rose—

Mr. Huckfield: I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) because he is an intruder into these debates.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Give way.

Mr. Huckfield: The expenditure by both—

Mr. Michael Marshall: Give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) knows full well that if the Minister does not wish to give way, he does not give way.

Mr. Huckfield: The expenditure by both committees is carefully controlled. It has not been excessive, bearing in mind their arduous work. If hon. Members are really worried about the amount spent by the Organising Committees, they have the answer in their own hands. Had they not deliberately delayed this Bill so much, the period for which the Organising Committees have had to work would not have been so long.
I also want to refute the suggestion made by the hon. Member for St. Ives that something underhand—in his kind

of language—appears to have taken place, because all that is happening—

Mr. Michael Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order at this late hour for the Minister to talk about this blanket sum and not to give a breakdown?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no control over what the Minister says, except in respect of parliamentary language.

Mr. Huckfield: Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches know that it is a perfectly normal and usual convention for Organising Committees for future nationalised industries to be set up after the Second Reading of the relevant Bill and for their expenses to be defrayed from the Contingencies Fund.
Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches know that the Second Reading of this Bill took place in this House a year ago and that the Second Reading has just taken place once more to resolve any kinds of doubts. We are dealing with exactly the same Bill, for the purpose of the Parliament Act, as we dealt with a year ago. I do not think that any kind of convention has been abused, or any kind of impropriety has been committed.

Mr. Grylls: rose—

Mr. Huckfield: If hon. Members—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that hon. Members would like to hear the Minister's reply, because the debate will finish in a few minutes.

Mr. Huckfield: If hon. Members—

Mr. Grylls: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that I shall not have to call again upon hon. Members to resume their seats when the Minister does not give way.

Mr. Huckfield: If hon. Members opposite—and particularly the hon. Member who spoke first—had any doubts about the continuity of the Organising Committees, they know that those doubts have been resolved by the vote of the House tonight. We are merely following once more the convention whereby Organising Committees continue after the Second


Reading of the Bill. For the hon. Member to make the kind of comments that he did shows that he simply does not understand the way that these matters work.
As I say, this is quite a normal, customary convention, about which my right hon. Friend has been perfectly above board and open. In fact, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry said in an answer on 31st March—and I shall quote what my right hon. Friend said for the benefit of those hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who keep asking questions from a sedentary position—
such expenditure as the Committees may incur on the necessary preparatory work to enable the two Corporations to exercise their statutory functions after Royal Assent to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill shall be met from the Contingencies Fund. The fund will be reimbursed by the two Corporations concerned when they are set up."—[Official Report, 31st March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 507.]
We have written undertakings to that effect from the two Corporations.

Mr. Grylls: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to respect the Standing Orders of the House. It is my duty, as a servant of the House, to see that the Standing Orders are observed.

Mr. Huckfield: I want to say again—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Come on.

Mr. Huckfield: Obviously the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). with all his wisdom and experience of the shipyards, needs to listen to debates such as this. He ought to know, as I have said previously, that he has had many opportunities for making points such as those that have been made tonight, as have his hon. Friends. As I say, the practice that has been adopted for the funding of these two Organising Committees—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: rose—

Mr. Huckfield: —was made clear—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Minister for giving way. I am most grateful to him.

Mr. Huckfield: Mr. Huckfield rose—

Hon. Members: He has given way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I observed the situation, the Minister thought that I was rising to ask the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) to resume his seat. Mr. Huckfield.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has complained that my hon. Friends are asking questions from a sedentary position. When they rise, the Minister refuses to give way and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, tell them to sit down. Will you tell the Minister that his behaviour is provocative and ought not to be repeated?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members on this matter. There are only a few minutes left for the debate. Let us part peacefully early in the morning. The Standing Order is specific about the conduct of hon. Members. When they rise to make an intervention, if an hon. Member who has the Floor of the House refuses to give way, they must resume their seat. If on being called upon by the occupant of the Chair to observe the Standing Order an hon. Member refuses to do so, he has to take the consequences.

Mr. Grylls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in a debate on a Financial Resolution, when the Minister refuses to say how the money that has been spent in the previous Session is accounted for, he can continue refusing to answer when the House quite clearly wants an answer to that and how the money is broken down? That is what we are here for.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Huckfield: I hope that the House will take note that the main interrupters in this short debate have been precisely those people who never contributed to any of the previous debates on this subject. I hope that their hon. Friends will note who is making the interruptions and who is preventing me from giving this information to the House. I hope that their hon. Friends will take very careful


note of who are the Opposition Members who are preventing me from giving the information which I seek to give to the House.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have been urging the hon. Gentleman to give it for the last half hour.

Mr. Huckfield: We get quite used to the schoolboy tones of the hon. Member for Macclesfield. We knew him when he was in Warwickshire. We got rid of him from Warwickshire, and very soon the people will get rid of him from Macclesfield.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: rose—

Mr. Huckfield: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. As I have been—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to refer to an hon. Member repeatedly and then refuse to give way to him?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing in the Standing Orders that gives any powers to the Chair to compel the Minister to give way.

Mr. Huckfield: What I keep trying to get through to one or two, perhaps unhearing, hon. Gentlemen opposite is that the Government have made their procedures clear from the beginning over the funding of these two Organising Committees. It was made utterly clear beyond all reasonable doubt in the answer that was given by my right hon. Friend to which I referred. I repeat that the answer is at column 507—

Mr. Tebbit: rose—

Mr. Huckfield: I assure the House that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is the last person to whom I shall give way.
All that we are talking about tonight is a Money Resolution that is identical

in all significant respects to the one that the House passed a year ago.

Mr. Nott: rose—

Mr. Huckfield: No. The only slight change that has been made reflects an amendment that was passed on Report in this House in relation to Clause 11. The amendment added to the excluded loans mentioned in Clause 11(9) loans guaranteed under Section 10 of the Industry Act 1972. The Money Resolution has been amended to cover that point. All that hon. Members are exercising themselves about tonight is a Money Resolution that is in all significant respects identical to the one that this House agreed to a year ago.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Answer the question.

Mr. Huckfield: I do not understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite are asking the kind of questions that they have asked, when I have already given to the House the main heads of information that they seek. I have already given a breakdown of the expenditure, and I have tried to tell the House how the money has been spent by the two Organising Committees.
I have already tried to tell Conservative Members about the hard work that has been done by these Organising Committees, and tribute has been paid to them and to the chairmen for the work that they have done. I believe that the money that has been provided for these Organising Committees represents the best chance of saving the industries. I believe, too, that it represents the best chance of saving hundreds of thousands of jobs.
It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 261.

Division No. 8.]
AYES
[12.58 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Atkinson, Norman
Bishop, E. S.


Aileen, Frank
Bain, Mrs Margaret
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Boardman, H.


Archer, Peter
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Armstrong, Ernest
Bates, Alf
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur


Ashley, Jack
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Bradley, Tom


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bidwell, Sydney
Bray, Dr Jeremy




Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
O'Halloran, Michael


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Buchan, Norman
Hefter, Eric S.
Ovenden, John

Buchanan, Richard
Henderson, Douglas
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hooley, Frank
Padley, Walter


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Park, George

Campbell, Ian
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Parker, John


Canavan, Dennis
Huckfield, Les
Parry, Robert


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Pendry, Tom


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Perry, Ernest


Carter, Ray
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Cartwright, John
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Prescott, John


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Clemitson, Ivor
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Radice, Giles


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Reid, George


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Concannon, J. D.
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cronin, John
Judd, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Kaufman, Gerald
Rose, Paul B.


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cryer, Bob
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kinnock, Neil
Ryman, John


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lambie, David
Sandelson, Neville


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Sedgemore, Brian


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamond, James
Selby, Harry


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lee, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dempsey, James
Litterick, Tom
Sillers, James


Doig, Peter
Loyden, Eddie
Silverman, Julius


Dormand, J. D.
Luard, Evan
Skinner, De[...]nis


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Small, William


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Snape, Peter


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


Edge, Geoff
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McElhone, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Spun)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stewart, Donald (Western l[...]es)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


English, Michael
MacKenzie, Gregor
Stoddart, David


Ennals, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Stott, Roger


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Evans, John (Newton)
Madden, Max
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Magee, Bryan
Swain, Thomas


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mallal[...]eu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Flannery, Martin
Marks, Kenneth
Thompson, George


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Marquand, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tierney, Sydney


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tinn, James


Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tomlinson, John


Forrester, John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tomney, Frank


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Meacher, Michael
Torney, Tom


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Freeson, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


George, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Walden, Brian (B'ham L'dyw'd)


Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Golding, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Gould, Bryan
Molloy, William
Ward, Michael


Gourlay, Harry
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, David


Graham, Ted
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watt, Hamish


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Weetch, Ken


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Weitzman, David


Grocott, Bruce
Moyle, Roland
Wellbeloved, James


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
White, James (Pollok)


Harper, Joseph
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Whitlock, William


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Newens, Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Noble, Mike
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hatton, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)







Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Young, David (Bolton E)


Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Woodall, Alec



Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Woof, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. Tom Cox and


Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Mr. Frank R. White




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Alison, Michael
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mawby, Ray


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Glyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Arnold, Tom
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mayhew, Patrick


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhew, Victor
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Baker, Kenneth
Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Peter


Banks, Robert
Gorst, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Beith, A. J.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Moate, Roger


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Molyneaux, James


Benyon, W.
Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector


Berry, Hon Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon
Montgomery, Fergus


Biffen, John
Grist, Ian
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Biggs-Davison, John
Grylls, Michael
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Blaker, Peter
Hall, Sir John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hort Peter (Chester)


Bottomley, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mudd, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hannam, John
Heave, Airey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Nelson, Anthony


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Neubert, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Havers, Sir Michael
Newton, Tony


Brittan, Leon
Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Nott, John


Brotherton, Michael
Heseltine, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Bryan, Sir Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John


Buchanan-Smith, Ailck
Hodgson, Robin
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Budgen, Nick
Holland, Philip
Page, Richard (Workington)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hopson, Emlyn
Paisley, Rev Ian


Burden, F. A.
Hordern, Peter
Pardoe, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Cecil


Carlisle, Mark
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Carson, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Penhaligon, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Percival, Ian


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hurd, Douglas
Pink, R. Bonner


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Clegg, Walter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
James, David
Prior, Rt Hon James


Cope, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wansl'd &amp; W'df'd)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy


Corrie, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rathbone, Tim


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crowder, F. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Drayson, Burnaby
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Dunlop, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lamont, Norman
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Elliott, Sir William
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Emery, Peter
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eyre, Reginald
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawson, Nigel
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sainsbury, Tim


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCusker, H.
Shersby, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil
Silvester, Fred


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


Fox, Marcus
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Freud, Clement
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fry, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Speed, Keith


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marten, Neil
Spence, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mates, Michael
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Gardner, Edward (S Fyide)
Maude, Angus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)







Sproat, Iain
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Walters, Dennis


Stainton, Keith
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Weatherill, Bernard


Stanbrook, Ivor
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wells, John


Stanley, John
Townsend, Cyril D
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Trotter, Neville
Wiggin, Jerry


Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Stokes, John
Viggers, Peter
Younger, Hon George


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wakeham, John



Tapsell, Peter
Welder, David (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and


Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Carol Mather


Tebbit, Norman

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of two bodies corporate to be called British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required for making payments to either of them by way of public dividend capital and the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required to enable the Secretary of State to make loans to either of them, subject to the following limits—
(a) the aggregate of—
(i) the amounts for the time being outstanding, otherwise than by way of interest, in respect of money borrowed by British Aerospace and each of its wholly owned subsidiaries, other than money borrowed on excluded loans, and not including commencing capital, and
(ii) the sums paid to British Aerospace by way of public dividend capital,
shall not exceed £250 million;
(b) the aggregate of—
(i) the amounts for the time being outstanding, otherwise than by way of interest, in respect of money borrowed by British Shipbuilders and each of its wholly owned subsidiaries, other than money borrowed on excluded loans, and not including commencing capital; and
(ii) the sums paid to British Shipbuilders by way of public dividend capital, shall not exceed £300 million;
(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required to fulfil guarantees given by the Treasury in respect of loans to British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders;
(3) the charge on the National Loans Fund, with recourse to the Consolidated Fund, of the principal of and interest on government stock issued by way of compensation in accordance with provisions of the said Act of the present Session and the issue out of the National Loans Fund of any sums necessary to meet expenses incurred in connection with the issue or repayment of any such government stock and payments of interest on amounts of compensation prior to the issue of such stocks;
(4) the payment out of money provided by Parliament, subject to the conditions specified in the said Act of the present

Session, of any sums other than public dividend capital required by the Secretary of State for making payments to British Aerospace or any of its wholly owned subsidiaries for the purpose of promoting the design, development or production of civil aircraft, subject to the limit that the aggregate of the sums so paid less any sums received by the Secretary of State (otherwise than by way of interest on money lent) in pursuance of the terms and conditions on which any such payment was made shall not at any time exceed £50 million;
(5) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) remuneration allowances and expenses to any individual appointed in pursuance of the said Act as a stockholders' reresentative;
(b) remuneration and allowances to members and officers of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal established under the said Act of the present Session and other expenses of that tribunal; and
(c) any administrative expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to the said Act;
(6) the payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund of any sums falling to be so paid by virtue of the said Act;
and for the purpose of this Resolution
(a) a loan is an excluded loan in relation to either of the bodies corporate established by the said Act of the present Session if—
(i) it consists of money borrowed by one of its wholly owned subsidiaries either from that body or from another of that body's wholly owned subsidiaries or of money borrowed by that body from any of its wholly owned subsidiaries; or
(ii) it is a loan under section 1 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 or a loan in respect of which payments are authorised under paragraph (4) above, or a loan under section 8 of the Industrial Expansion Act 1969 or section 7 or section 8 of the Industry Act 1972; or
(iii) it is a loan guaranteed under section 10 of that Act; or
(iv) the purpose of the loan is to pay off the whole or any part of that body's commencing debt or
(v) the purpose of the loan is to pay off a previous loan which was itself an


excluded loan by virtue of sub-paragraph (iv) above of this sub-paragraph;
(b) 'commencing capital', in relation to British Aerospace or British Shipbuilders, means such amount as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine under the said Act of the present Session;
(c) 'commencing debt' means that part of the commencing capital which is not to be treated for the purposes of the Act as public dividend capital.

NATIONAL INSURANCE SURCHARGE BILL

Ordered,
That in respect of the National Insurance Surcharge Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Coleman.]

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time this day.

PROCEDURE (SESSIONAL COMMITTEE)

Motion made,
That the matters of the calling of second amendments, the method of raising points of order during divisions, voting on Opposition motions on Supply days and motions relating to the Business of the House which direct the Chair to bring specified business to a conclusion at certain times, be referred to the Sessional Committee on Procedure.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered this day.

SOUND BROADCASTING (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Motion made,
That the Lords Message of 25th November relating to the Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the implementation of the Resolutions of both Houses in favour of the establishment of a permanent system of sound broadcasting of their proceedings, be now considered.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered this day.

LONDON MEDICAL SERVICES (RESOURCES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

1.11 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am pleased to raise on the Adjournment the subject of the allocation of money to London hospitals and the threat that this will carry to medical services in central London and even to the teaching hospitals themselves.
The House will know that all health authorities are being asked to trim their expenditure. I am not complaining about that, and London must take its fair share of the cuts. But I believe that London is being asked to take too high a proportion of the cuts as a result of the working paper called "Sharing resources for health in England", the Report of the Resource Allocation Working Party, which was published earlier this year. The working party says that National Health Service resources should be shared round the country, and it means, in effect, that the four regional health authorities which meet together in the centre of London will all have substantially less, and this will affect the services in central London.
The case of this document is that the London area is over-provided for, and I can see that there is some strength in this argument. But it is a totally exaggerated strength. I accept that the population of London is declining and, therefore, that the services available to London in the health area and even more significantly in the educational area, as any London Member knows, will have to be reduced over the years. But I object to the damaging effect that will result in the London hospitals if the proposals in the document are implemented on the scale and in the time scale recommended.
Many parts of the document are ill thought out, and I suspect the philosophy behind it. There is a feeling running through the document that London is just one huge champagne belt which is rich and prosperous, when any London Member knows that this is not the case. There are areas of considerable social deprivation in London. One has only to drive through North Kensington, Paddington,


my former constituency of Acton, Shepherds Bush, or Hammersmith, or to cross any of the bridges outside this House and go through the boroughs of Bermondsey, Southwark, Brixton, Lambeth and Wandsworth to realise that these are areas of social deprivation judged by any standard. Many of these areas have a high level of unemployment. The general level of unemployment in the London area is just over 4·3 per cent. but unemployment in Poplar, Stepney and Deptford is in the region of 12 per cent.
These are the classic inner city areas where there is poor housing, poor job opportunities and declining services. It is these areas which the Secretary of State for the Environment is saying ought to have more resources devoted to them. Yet the Secretary of State for Social Services is saying exactly the reverse.
What would be the consequences of the recommendations of this working party for London? In a letter to The Times today Sir Francis Avery Jones, the chairman of the medical committee of St. Mark's Hospital, said that if the recommendations were implemented they would have the effect of reducing purchasing power for the London regions by an amount just over £100 million a year. My constituency lies in the region of the area health authority for Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster—the North-West Thames area. If anyone was asked to name the three most prosperous parts of London I dare say that he would name those three areas. That would be totally erroneous.
A report prepared for the Department of the Environment was underaken with a view to identifying the worst areas of urban deprivation in Great Britain and promoting a partial test of the appropriateness of area-based policies of positive discrimination. An analysis was made of areas of urban deprivation. It was found that of all the local authorities in the country Kensington and Chelsea ranked sixth from the top of those suffering the worst urban deprivation. Westminster was fourteenth in terms of total population affected. I hope that I have shown that London is not a glittering jewel which can be plundered and the resources spread over the rest of the country.
If those recommendations of RAWP are implemented, my area health authority fears that there will be the loss of one teaching hospital. In the area health authority of which my constituency forms a part there are six centres of excellence as they are called. There are four teaching hospitals, Charing Cross, Middlesex, St. Mary's and Westminster. There are also the post-graduate school at Hammersmith and the clinical researeh centre at Northwick Park. Institutions like these are unique. Not only are they the envy of the rest of the country; they are the envy of the world.
I have mentioned only six of the teaching hospitals in the area health authority with which I am concerned but there are 22 such centres of excellence in central London. I ask the Minister to give an absolutely categoric assurance that not one of these will be closed down as a result of the RAWP report. I want a complete assurance that not one will be lost.
Why do I ask this? I have already referred to the letter written by Sir Francis Avery Jones. He goes on in that letter to say that if these proposals are introduced:
We believe that a reduction of this order must mean closing major hospitals as well as small ones. If so, within a few years London's position as a leading international medical centre and as an important invisible export would be jeopardised. No longer would London be able to maintain its key rôle in higher specialist training for the whole country.
On Monday, Professor Kinmouth, also writing to The Times from the Department of Surgery at St. Thomas's Hospital Medical School, just across the river, argued that this dispersal of medical excellence was wrong for medical reasons. He spoke of where this had happened in the past and said:
We have only to look at medicine in the world as a whole to see where it leads. To the cast we see several countries which have adopted this policy of devolution and dispersal of resources. The chief of them has produced no notable advance in surgery since the war. To the west we see America where excellence is encouraged. This year workers in American centres won all of the Nobel prizes for medicine.
I am convinced that a loss of any of these centres or a significant run-down in any of them would be highly damaging to the medical services, not only of London but of the whole country.
If the Minister says "We shall keep all these centres of excellence", the implications for the rest of the medical services of the area health authority are significant. Other hospitals might have to be closed, other services reduced. In my own area there is a serious danger that St. Charles Hospital in Ladbroke Grove will be closed. The House probably heard last week about the weekend closure of St. Bartholomew's. At the Hackney Hospital, which is in a deprived area—I suppose that is the buckle of the champagne belt—two general wards and one children's ward are to be closed. There is St. James's Hospital at Balham and St. Nicholas's Hospital at Plumstead; the sword hangs over them all.
The Minister will know that in central London the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital is about to be closed as well as St. George's at Hyde Park Corner. I believe that this working party did not take two special factors into account. The first is London's floating population. At the Westminster Hospital, just across the road, two out of every three patients do not live within the district of the area health authority. I dare say that half their patients do not live in London. Yet London has to pay the cost of the hospitals from which the rest of the country benefits. The district of area health authority of which my constituency forms a part has a population of 420,000 people, but the authority estimates that it has to provide medical services for a million people.
I have already mentioned the second factor, which is that this document does not take social deprivation into account. There is also the technical argument, important in medical circles, that the report depends too much upon mortality rates rather than morbidity rates.
I hope that I shall get an undertaking from the Minister this evening, because there is a great deal of anxiety about what the report will mean to London. If the Minister wants savings, he should not look for them in the teaching hospitals and centres of excellence, or in the small local hospitals which serve our communities. Most of my constituents, and probably those of any other hon. Member, prefer to go into small rather than large hospitals. Let the Minister look for savings in the enormous scale of administration in the Health Service.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Sociel Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): It was the hon. Member's own Government who imposed this administration upon the Health Service.

Mr. Baker: That is the point that the Minister always makes, but he is now responsible for the administration of the Health Service. It is a national scandal that over the last 10 years the number of administrators has increased by 31,000 and the number of doctors by 11,000. That includes the years before the reform came into effect. I quite accept that the administration is far too top heavy and should be looked at again. There are many features that we could look at in the structure of area health authorities and regional health authorities. We should, perhaps, abolish the regional health authorities. The Government must think again about this proposal. They should not introduce a panic measure that will do irreparable damage to services and hospitals that have taken centures to build. We are still the world capital of medicine and it is absolutely absurd to destroy something which the rest of the world envies. I hope, therefore, that, this matter having been brought to the attention of the House, the Minister will give a categorical assurance that this report will be put on the shelf and the dust allowed to accumulate upon it.

Mr. Michael Stewart: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I did not know that the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) wished to speak. Has he the agreement of the hon. Member who initiated the debate? That is the custom.

Mr. Stewart: I do not have the agreement of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) object to the right hon. Gentleman's taking part in the debate?

Mr. Baker: As I told you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, two of my hon. Friends asked to take part in the debate. I have no objection to the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) also taking part.

1.25 a.m.

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) for


the opportunity to support the case which he made so eloquently. It is difficult to oppose the general case that one should try to equalise the resources available to the National Health Service throughout the country, but there are reasons for treating the working party's report with suspicion.
First, it would be almost impossible to implement the recommendations in London. I have a letter from my area health authority which says that the report would almost inevitably mean the closure of one of the major hospitals in the area. Yet yesterday, we were given an assurance by the Minister that no major hospitals would be closed. The authority in my area wants to know how it is to achieve economies totalling £30 million without closing one of the major hospitals. In practice, it will be impossible to implement the recommendations of the report in London.
What the Minister is trying to do goes clean against the work which is taking place in the Department of the Environment where, at long last, it has been recognised that the plight of inner cities needs urgent attention and that resources must be switched to them. The Secretary of State for the Environment is trying to arrest the flow of population and resources from the inner cities, but his belated efforts are being negated by what the DHSS is trying to do.
If we are to equalise resources within the NHS, it can be done only at a time of economic growth. Trying to do it during a period of nil growth or recession would be suicidal. I urge the Minister to look again at the report and to announce that it will be implemented only in the context of economic growth, thereby avoiding the traumatic decisions which will otherwise have to be taken in London, particularly West London.

1.27 a.m.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) for the opportunity to take part in this debate.
I remind the Minister that he recently received a petition signed by 16,000 of my constituents calling for the retention of the Eltham and Mottingham Hospital. Will the Minister remind the local area

health authority that if it wants to save money, it cannot afford a new health centre in the grounds of a hospital which it means to close because of lack of money?
One-third of the people in my constituency do not have cars and if this proposal is implemented they will have to take three buses to get to the nearest general hospital.

1.28 a.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The Secretary of State assured us yesterday that no teaching hospitals in London will be closed. Indeed, he put it even wider than that. It is difficult to see how that undertaking can be met if the principles of the report are put into operation. I trust that what my right hon. Friend said yesterday means that the Government will not go ahead—or will go ahead only slowly—with the ideas in the report.
May I make a special plea for the Charing Cross Hospital which is in my constituency? It is unique among recently-built large hospitals in that it was completed within the time originally scheduled for construction and that it cost less than the original estimate.
The hospital is doing unbelievably good work as a teaching hospital and for the people in the neighbourhood. I beg the Minister to make clear to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State how deeply felt are the anxieties about this and other hospitals as a result of recent reports. We look to him to allay these anxieties and to give us reassurance.

1.29 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): I am glad that we have had this debate. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) has raised a matter of equity and in doing so has revealed a number of the current misconceptions about the working party's report. It gives me the chance to comment on them and refute them.
The subject which the hon. Gentleman has raised is an alleged unfairness in the distribution of money within the National Health Service. What is being opposed is my right hon. Friend's policy of achieving greater fairness in that distribution, a policy which has been accepted by Governments of both colours for many


years, but to which we are now giving new emphasis.
No one would dispute that historically there have been great inequalities in the facilities, the levels of finance and hence the levels of service available in different parts of the country. The four Thames regions have been better endowed than the rest, particularly in hospital provision. Excluding the cost effects of the teaching hospitals the scales used by the Resource Allocation Working Party show current expenditure per capita in London as North-East Thames £85; North-West Thames £84; South-East Thames £78; and South-West Thames £76. This compares with a national average of £72, and expenditure per capita of £64 in the Trent and North-Western Regions.
I do not need to be reminded that costs and wage levels are different in London, nor that the London medical schools train one third of the country's doctors and that this imposes extra costs. But I should be astonished if anyone were to argue that they alone justified present disparities, although it is admitted that there are areas of acute inner city social deprivation in London, and I shall mention these later.
I hope, however, that no one will suggest that we shall solve the problem by pumping in more money to raise the standards of the lower regions to the best. That will mean an extra £600 million. If hon. Members opposite are proposing that public expenditure should be cut by £4,000 million to £5,000 million, that option is out.
A year ago the Government established the Resource Allocation Working Party, which has issued two reports. Its first and interim report was used as a basis for allocation of money in 1976–7. Its final report, which came out a couple of months ago, is still out for consultation. The working party's task was to recommend the criteria upon which long-term allocations of money should be based. Application of those criteria naturally shows what imbalances there are, but it does not show how quickly they should be corrected. That is a matter for political decision. As my right hon. Friend said on 25th November:
The tighter funds become, the more difficult it is to make a rapid shift."—[Official Report, 25th Nov., 1976; Vol. 921, c 319.]

My right hon. Friend has not yet decided whether to accept the working party's report. If he does, that will not commit him to a particular timetable for implementation. In any case the pace of progress will be a matter for discussion by the Government and by health authorities each year. For planning purposes it is necessary to make assumptions for several years ahead, but that does not imply firm commitments. The working party itself recognised that it had not dealt fully with cost differences and recommended various subjective adjustments pending further investigation.
We have introduced into the NHS a new planning system. This is the first year of its operation. All health authorities are reviewing their services and producing strategic plans for their services over the next decade or so and operational plans for next year and the two succeeding years. The planning process includes widespread consultation.
We are now at the stage when some regional health authorities have formulated provisional redistribution proposals—I emphasise proposals, not decisions—and when some regional and area authorities have drafted plans and have put them out for consultation and comment. These plans are intended to be realistic, not just a set of aspirations. Obviously they depend very much on the resource assumptions, and particularly on the assumed extent and pace of redistribution.
I have already said that redistribution is partly to be determined by planning. The interplay of the two is a sophisticated business and it is not to be expected that it can be got right first time. So, even after the plans are put out for consultation and debate, there will be checking and re-checking and the opportunity for adjustment, and that process could take two or three years.
There have been wild stories that famous teaching hospitals in London are threatened with wholesale and imminent butchery. The hon. Members for St. Marylebone and for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) made a particular point of this. This is nonsense. All that is known at present is that, if a particular pattern of redistribution was carried through within a predetermined and fairly short timescale, that could have fairly considerable implications for some of those


hospitals. No one is going to work in that way. It will not happen that way, because it will take a considerable time to get this policy into operation.

Mr. Baker: Do I understand that the Minister is giving a clear and categorical guarantee that none of the 22 centres of excellence in the London area will be closed? Will he answer "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to make a prediction about the next 10 or 15 years. I cannot do that. I repeat that it is absolute nonsense to think that there are plans for the imminent shutting down of major London teaching hospitals. I am not saying that there will be no closures. There will be closures of hospitals, because, as well as the re-allocation policy, there is the necessity to rationalise provision in London.
Some area health authorities have already put out formal proposals for closures and changes of use in accordance with the prescribed procedures for consultation. These are to be distinguished from the forward strategic plans. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) mentioned one circumstance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) mentioned other circumstances. I am only too happy to reiterate the statement made by my right hon. Friend at Question Time yesterday.
These other plans are designed to indicate the intended line of development and cannot lead to closures or major changes of use except through the prescribed procedures, which mean consultation with interested parties and the community health councils. There is a procedure for bringing in the regions and ultimately my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Ultimately there is a right of appeal to him if the community health council objects. That is why I cannot comment on particular plans—because there may well have to be an appeal to my right hon. Friend on the particular circumstances of a case and he would have to adjudicate. I should not like to prejudice his decision.
I should like to make five general observations about the strategic plans.

First, they are intended to indicate possible lines of development over a long period—10 years plus. Consequently, any strategic closures which are suggested may be many years away. Secondly, they are necessarily very tentative at present. It is bound to take several years to put them into proper shape. Thirdly, they are the subject of wide consultation, which is intended to be effective. Fourthly, and crucially, they are based on assumptions about resource availability and distribution which are not yet decided upon. Fifthly, we have no intention whatever of allowing major resource allocation decisions to become a matter simply for mathematical formulae. The formulae, if accepted, will be our tools, not our masters.
Finally, I turn back to something I said at the beginning. We recognise that there are areas of acute social deprivation in inner London. Not only do they share problems common to the rest of the country, but they have many difficulties peculiar to big city life. I do not need to be told about them. Such areas exist in the London borough which I represent and in which I live. They are areas where the older housing is likely to be poor, with outside toilets, multi-occupation, suffering from damp and other deficiencies. There is a problem of heavier unemployment there than in other areas. They are areas where there is overcrowding with a shifting population, which is not a population upon which it is easy to found ideas of community care for our handicapped and long-term sick. They are areas where many of the active young are leaving for fresh opportunities and challenges elsewhere and such stable population as exists is probably an ageing one that needs more than its fair share of care.
Because inner city areas lack the amenities of life, very often medical and social care is provided on the basis of social and medical workers and doctors who live elsewhere and who enter the areas for the working day and leave at the end of it. I am aware that this encourages a tradition of hospital medication to grow up. As an example, we have already given the highest priority to building a nucleus hospital in Newham where the existing hospital service is demonstrably inadequate for the needs of this densely populated borough. It is


inconceivable that a Labour Government would allow any major redistribution of hospital resources away from these parts of London without bearing in mind the need to solve problems existing in the social services and primary care.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan: The Minister will appreciate the very

great anxiety that exists about this matter. Can he give us a firm assurance that no centre of excellence will be closed in the near future?

Mr. Moyle: Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Two o'clock.